[Historic Preservation Appeals Board on June 26, 2023.]
[00:00:04]
HE IS HERE NOW, UH, ON MONDAY, JUNE 26 TO 2023.
I AM JD BARTEL, CHAIR OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD, AND I AM CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
THE BOARD CONDUCTS MEETINGS AT THE CITY HALL ANNEX WITH THE VIRTUAL PAR PARTICIPATION OPTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 5 1 1 2 7 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH BECAME IN EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2021.
THE CHAIR, MYSELF WILL BE PRESENT IN THE ROOM BOARD MEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE PUBLIC MAY ATTEND IN PERSON, ON OR THROUGH A VIDEO CONFERENCE LINK USING MICROSOFT TEAMS AT THIS BOARD MEETING.
APPLICANTS MAY OPEN, UH, MAY OPEN AND SPEAK FOR A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, AND THE APPLICANTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO BE CONCISE IF BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
IF WILL BE GIVEN ADDITIONAL TIME TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS MAY SPEAK WHEN I RECOGNIZE YOU TO SPEAK.
THE CHAIR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO LIMIT THE TIME FOR SPEAKERS.
NUMBER TWO, IF YOU DO NOT SIGN UP TO SPEAK IN ADVANCE, YOU CAN SUBMIT A SPEAKER REQUEST TO STAFF AND YOUR NAME WILL BE ANNOUNCED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
IF JOINING VIRTUALLY, PLEASE MUTE YOURSELF AND PLEASE ONLY UNMUTE YOURSELF TO SPEAK WHEN I CALL ON YOU TO SPEAK BY NAME.
USE THE COMPUTER'S MICROPHONE ICON TO MUTE, OR PRESS STAR SIX TO MUTE FROM MOST PHONES.
NUMBER FOUR, THE MEETING MUST THE MEETING MEETS CURRENT OPEN MEETING LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
SO, SO LONG AS A QUORUM MEMBERS ARE AUDIBLE AND VISIBLE WITH A CAMERA ON AND A MIC READY TO BE TURNED ON.
IF VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND RESPOND BY REPEATING YOUR NAME AND SAYING, PRESENT OR PRESENT VIRTUALLY WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME.
I AM JD BARTEL, THE CHAIR, AND I AM PRESENT.
TRUMAN EDM MINSTER IS ABSENT TODAY.
AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR JENNIFER OSLAND.
MAY I CALL FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
UH, I'M JENNIFER OSLAND, ACTING SECRETARY OF THIS BOARD.
UM, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A QUICK MINUTE TO WELCOME, UM, A NEW MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM STAFF, UM, CHARLES SADLER, IF YOU WANNA STAND UP.
HE JOINED US A COUPLE WEEKS AGO AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE HIM ON BOARD.
ALSO, JUST A NOTE FOR ANYBODY, UM, INTERESTED IN THE LIVABLE PLACES, UM, INITIATIVE.
UM, AFTER ABOUT THREE YEARS OF WORK, UH, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS, UM, UH, WE'LL BE PRESENTING THE RECOMMEND THE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL.
UH, ACTUALLY THEY OPENED A PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL OPENED A PUBLIC HEARING LAST WEEK, AND WE EXPECT THEM TO TAKE ACTION ON HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS IN JULY.
AND THESE, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE NEW OPTIONS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO BUILD SMALLER TYPE UNITS IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND ALSO THERE'S SOME, UM, IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT'LL MAKE, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS MORE, UH, WALKABLE AND PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AND SAFER.
SO, UM, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THAT, YOU CAN GO TO WWW DOT LET'S TALK HOUSTON.ORG AND LOOK FOR LIVABLE PLACES.
UM, NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 27TH, 2023 HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD MINUTES AND MAY 18TH, 2023.
TRAINING MINUTES PRIOR MEETING MINUTES WERE POSTED WITH THE AGENDA.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ACCEPT THESE MINUTES? PLEASE TURN ON YOUR MIC AND CLEARLY STATE YOUR LAST NAME.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? HELL, YOU'RE A SECOND.
OR IN FAVOR? IN FAVOR, ELLIOT FOUR, MYSELF AND THE OTHER TWO MEMBERS AS WELL.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE ITEM NUMBER TWO CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON JANUARY 26TH, 2023 FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 7 1 6 SILVER STREET IN THE OLD SIX WARD.
HISTORIC DISTRICT STAFF MAY HAVE YOUR REPORT BEFORE I CALL ON ANY SPEAKERS.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBER MEMBERS
[00:05:01]
OF THE APPEALS BOARD.MY NAME IS YASMIN ARSLAN AND I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THE PROPERTIES IS 7 1 6 SILVER STREET, HOUSTON, TEXAS.
THE PROJECT SUMMARY FOLLOWS, UM, APPLICANT DID WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT OR A C OF A, AND THEN APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A C OF A FOR THE WORK THAT WAS DONE.
APPLICANT CONTACTED HOP TO ASK FOR PERMISSION TO REMOVE AWNING DUE TO ITS POOR CONDITION AND FOR SAFETY REASONS.
OUR, UH, SENIOR INSPECTOR PETE CONFIRMED AND, UM, WE ALLOWED THEM TO REMOVE IT BEFORE IT WENT TO COMMISSION FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY REASONS.
UM, ON MAY 18TH, A COR WAS ISSUED FOR WORK COMPLETED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE AWNING BE REINSTALLED AND THE FINAL DESIGN TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF.
AND THE COR IS ATTACHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 33 SECTION.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS APPEALING THE DECISION TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD.
THE BASIS FOR THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC COMMISSION'S DECISIONS WAS FROM APPROVAL CRITERIA, UM, SECTION 33 2 4, 1 BECAUSE IT DID NOT MEET CRITERIA 1, 4, 5, AND SEVEN, THE APPLICANT'S GROUNDS FOR APPEAL THAT THE AWNING, UH, WAS RE THAT WAS REMOVED WAS NOT ORIGINAL.
AND PER THE PICTURES WE INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION, THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO AWNING ON THE BELT BUILDING.
WE HAD PERMISSION FROM THE OFFICE OF PRESERVATION TO REMOVE THE AWNING AS IT HAD NOT BEEN WELL MAINTAINED AND HAD BECOME HAZARDOUS TO BOTH THE BUILDING AND ANYBODY ON THE CITY'S SIDEWALK BENEATH IT.
WE DO HAVE SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTATION AS TO STATE OF THE AWNING PRIOR TO REMOVAL.
WE PRESERVED THE METAL MEDALLIONS THAT HELD THE AWNING UP AND UNDERSTAND THEIR IMPORTANCE, BUT NEED TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THEIR VIABILITY AS A STRUCTURAL ELEMENT.
WE HAVE AN ENCROACHMENT CONSENT FROM THE CITY OF HOUSTON THAT IS EXPIRING IN JANUARY, 2024.
THE CONSENT SAYS THAT AT EXPIRATION, THE ENCROACHING AWNING IS TO BE REMOVED.
STAFF CON, THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO SPEAK, AND THEN WE HAVE MR. NEIL PARKER TO SPEAK.
DOES ANYONE HAVE, DO, DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE I CALL SPEAKERS? I DO.
I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM WHAT I THINK I READ AND WAS OUT OF TOWN UNTIL LAST NIGHT, SO I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW VERY, UH, CLOSELY THAT THE ORIGINAL AWNINGS LONG GONE AND THE ONE THAT WAS JUST REMOVED BY THE CURRENT OWNER WAS WHAT WAS PUT IN HIS PLACE BY A PREVIOUS OWNER.
AND THAT PETE INSPECTED IT AND I SAW THE PICTURES, UM, AND CAN CONFIRM THAT A PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUIRED TO REMOVE SOMETHING THAT PROS PROPOSES A LIFE SAFETY THREAT TO THEMSELVES OR TO OTHERS.
WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT'S BEEN DONE YES.
UM, ELLIOT, UH, IS THERE SOME BUILDING PERMIT THAT'S NEEDING THIS CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION RIGHT NOW? I'M NOT QUITE CLEAR WHY THE CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION WAS ISSUED AND AND WHAT PURPOSE AND WHO ASKED FOR IT EXACTLY.
SO BECAUSE THE WORK WAS DONE BEFORE THEY MAINTAINED, BEFORE THEY GOT A A C OF A, THAT'S WHY WE CALL IT A-A-C-O-R.
THEY, THEY DIDN'T GET A PERMIT WHEN THEY DID, UH, THE WORK.
AND I BELIEVE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, UM, THAT THEY DID GET A PERMIT AFTER, UM, AND WE RELEASED THE HOLD.
DID YOU WE, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT.
SO THEY, WE, WE CALL IT A COR BECAUSE THEY ALREADY DID THE WORK.
SO EVEN THOUGH WE SAID, YES, YOU CAN REMOVE THE AWNING, IT WAS, UH, IT WAS THROUGH EMAIL AND PHONE CALL.
IT WAS NOT, UM, THROUGH THE SYSTEM, KIM, KIM MICKELSON WAS CITY LEGAL.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE AWNING WAS DONE UNDER THE EMERGENCY PROCEDURE OF CHAPTER 33, WHERE IT DID NOT HAVE TO COME TO COMMISSION BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF, OF, UH, I'LL CALL IT DISREPAIR.
THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT WORD, BUT, UM, BECAUSE OF THE, THE IMMEDIATE DANGER.
SO THAT WAS HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY AS THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS.
THEREAFTER, THE REQUEST WAS FOR THEM TO
[00:10:01]
COME BACK AND GET THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.THE COMMISSION HISTORICALLY DOES, NO PUN INTENDED, DOES NOT, UM, APPROVE A, A C OF A, BUT THEY APPROVED THEN A C OF R.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE LANGUAGE DIFFERENCE AND, AND WHY IT HAPPENED THE WAY IT HAPPENED.
UM, COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE IMPENDING EXPIRATION OF THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT? THE BUILDING ITSELF SITS ON THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE AWNING GOES BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND, UH, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, THEY HAD A, LIKE, UM, SOME KIND OF, UM, UM, I DON'T WANNA SAY A DEAL.
IT'S, WE, WE, THE CITY TYPICALLY WILL ISSUE A, A CONSENT TO ENCROACHMENT WHEN PART OF A BUILDING GOES OVER PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
SO THERE WAS AN EXISTING CONSENT TO ENCROACH THAT WOULD'VE EXPIRED, I BELIEVE, JANUARY, 2024.
OR UPON REMOVAL OF THE ENCROACHMENT.
'CAUSE ONCE THE ENCROACHMENT IS GONE, YOU DON'T NEED IT ANYMORE.
SO IN ANY EVENT, IF THIS, IF THIS GOES THROUGH AS BEING REQUIRED TO HAVE AN AWNING, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO, TO GET A NEW, UH, CONSENT TO ENCROACH JUST BY OPERATION OF ORDINANCE.
AND IF I MAY, I, I SPOKE TO, UM, SOME PEOPLE THERE IN THE PUBLIC WORKS AND TRY TO GET TO WHO, THE PERSON WHO'S, UH, RESPONSIBLE.
AND THEY SAID THAT, YES, EVEN THIS, THIS EXPIRED, BUT THEY, THEY CAN DO THIS AGAIN.
THEY CAN, UM, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANNA REQUIRE THEM TO DO SOMETHING IF THEY CAN'T.
SO THAT'S WHY WE REACHED OUT AND ASKED, AND THEY SAID THAT, UH, THEY ARE ABLE TO, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THIS IS HISTORIC, AND THAT'S HOW IT WAS.
JUST, UM, I'M, I COULD FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
UH, ELLIOT, I THOUGHT THE, UH, ORIGINAL OWNER THAT GOT THAT VARIANCE SAID THE AWNING HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
IT WAS THE, THE ACTUAL BUILDING WAS WHAT WAS ENCROACHING.
DID YOU ALL DECIDE THAT'S NOT THE CASE? IT'S JUST THE AWNING.
SO WE, THEY, THEY WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO MOVE THE BUILDING.
SO EVEN THOUGH THE BUILDING IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE, NO ONE IS EXPECTING THEM TO, TO MOVE IT, OR WE, WE HAVEN'T, THAT HAVEN'T BEEN, UH, KIND OF DISCUSSED BECAUSE THE, THE BUILDING ITSELF AND THE LOCATION OF IT WAS NOT THE ISSUE.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M NOT CLEAR ABOUT BECAUSE I THINK, I THOUGHT, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER HIS NAME NOW, HE WROTE A LETTER SAYING THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AWNING.
IT WAS THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING ITSELF.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT THE AWNING IS THERE OR NOT.
HAS ANYTHING, ANY RELEVANCE TO RENEWING OR THE CURRENT EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT ENCROACHMENT.
BUT YOU ALL HAVE THE OPINION THAT THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT IS IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY FOR THIS AWNING TO EXIST OR BE REPLACED, IS THAT THEY, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THAT, UM, ENCROACHMENT, UM, I KEEP CALLING IT DEAL, IT'S A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY, UM, TO ALLOW THEM, BECAUSE YES, IT'S ENCROACHING AGAIN, BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE.
BUT, UM, AND, AND I BELIEVE THE LETTER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS FROM, OF, UM, TWO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM THE OLD SIX WARD.
SO, UM, I THOUGHT IT WAS THE, I THOUGHT IT WAS THE PREVIOUS OWNER THAT ACTUALLY GOT THE ENCROACHMENT, UH, CONTRACT IN THE FIRST PLACE, OR VARIANCE OR SOMETHING.
SO I JUST WANT TO BE UNDERSTAND.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON WHAT HE WROTE AND THE FACT HE FELT THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING ITSELF, THAT THE PRESENCE OR DISAPPEARANCE OF THE AWNING HAS NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER ON THAT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT OR THE NECESSITY TO RENEW THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL ARE TAKING THE POSITION THAT THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT IS ABOUT THE AWNING.
THAT'S AS, AS FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
AND THAT WHAT, HOW I, WHAT I DISCUSSED WITH OTHER DIVISIONS, THAT'S OKAY.
THAT WAS HOW IT WAS, UH, UNDERSTOOD.
UM, IF I MAY, I THINK, UM, WHEN A, A BUILDING, IF A BUILDING, IT PREDATES THE CITY ORDINANCE AND IT, IT ENCROACHES INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY, IT'S ESSENTIALLY GRANDFATHERED.
UM, THE WAY THAT SOMEBODY WOULD MAKE IT LEGAL WOULD BE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND, UM, THEN THEIR PLA WOULD SHOW, UH, YOU KNOW, A TEMPORARY CONDITION AS LONG FOR THE LIFE OF THAT BUILDING.
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENTS ARE, IT PROBABLY, AND I, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT SINCE THIS WAS IN 1995, I'M IMAGINING WHEN IT WAS REPLACED, THE CITY REQUIRED AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
[00:15:01]
FOR THAT AWNING.AND USUALLY THAT'S LIKE WALLS OR OTHER THINGS THAT ARE BUILT IN THE, IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
SO THE, I'M, THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT SHOULD BE JUST ABOUT THE, UM, AWNING.
THIS IS THE MARK HY, THE MANAGING PARTNER OF SILVER SEED PROPERTIES.
HE SAID WHEN THEY GOT THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT, THE BUILDING DIDN'T HAVE AN AWNING.
THERE MAY BE A PORTION OF THE BUILDING THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
IT MAY ENCROACH INTO THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, UM, AROUND THAT CORNER.
AND SO ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENTS ARE ALSO DONE FOR THAT PURPOSE.
I, I DON'T, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE AWNING QUESTION.
AND I, AS AN ASIDE, I DON'T THINK THAT ENCROACHMENT THING IS CRITICAL TO OUR DECISION TODAY.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WHAT THE FACTS WERE.
CHAIR MAY COMMENT ON AN EARLIER QUESTION TOO.
THE, UH, APPLICATION FOR THE C OF A, UH, THIS WAS THE QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER A PERMIT WAS PENDING OR NEEDED.
AND THE C OF A APPLICATION INCLUDED WORK THAT WAS DONE ON THE HOUSE, ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S ON THE HOUSE NEXT TO THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
UH, SO IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THE, SEE IF I CAN GET TO THE TOP OF THE C OF A, SOMEWHERE IN HERE.
I KNOW THAT I CAN, IN YOUR DOCUMENTATION, YOU HAVE THE C OF A LOOK.
IF YOU LOOK UNDER THE APPLICATION PORTION, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE WERE OTHER REQUESTS.
AND THIS ALTERATION TO THIS BUILDING WAS PART OF THAT.
SO THERE WAS MORE THAN JUST THE AWNING INVOLVED.
SO I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON THAT.
I'M GONNA BEGIN CALLING SPEAKERS.
THE FIRST ONE ON MY LIST I HAVE IS A MR. WILLIAM BOONE, LISTED AS APPLICANT.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE MICROPHONE.
WILLIAM BOONE FOR YOU WOULD BE HELPFUL.
MY NAME IS WILL BOONE, MY WIFE STEPHANIE AND I LIVE AT SEVEN 16 SILVER 1819 CANE STREET.
ON APRIL 17TH, WE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION AND PLANS TO REMOVE A FAILING AWNING ON OUR HOME.
SEE APPENDIX B FOR DOCUMENTATION.
AFTER EXPRESSING OUR CONCERNS TO THE OFFICE OF PRESERVATION IN A MEETING ON MAY 1ST, WE RECEIVED A REQUEST TO REMOVE THE AWNING DOCUMENTED IN AN EMAIL IN APPENDIX C, WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE HAD FULL APPROVAL FROM THE CITY AND BELIEVED WE WERE ELIMINATING A PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD DURING THE HAHC MEETING ON MAY 18TH, WHICH WE WERE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONDITION AND HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE AWNING, OUR INTENTIONS, AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING.
TODAY, WE HOPE TO ESTABLISH THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE EXISTING AWNING RAPIDLY DETERIORATING, BUT ALSO THAT THE UNDERLYING BRICK STRUCTURE WAS DETERIORATING BECAUSE OF THE AWNING, THAT IT ENCROACHES ON THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY, AND THAT THERE'S A PRECEDENCE WITH AN OLD SIX WARD FOR PERMANENTLY REMOVING AWNINGS FROM BRICK BUILDINGS.
WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT PRESERVING THIS IMPORTANT BUILDING, AND WE ARE SEEKING A PRAGMATIC SOLUTION THAT WILL SERVE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.
OUR ACTION IS SUPPORTED BY THE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS OF A LICENSED HOME INSPECTOR IN APPENDIX A AND TWO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, APPENDIX D AND E ON JANUARY 12TH, 2022.
PRIOR TO OUR PURCHASE OF THE HOME, RED STAR HOME INSPECTION STATED THE FOLLOWING, THE AWNING WAS SHOWN TO BE IN POOR CONDITION.
ISSUES INCLUDE WOOD ROT IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS WHERE STRUCTURAL ANCHORS WERE OBSERVED TO BE PULLING AWAY FROM THE BRICK WALL.
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU EVALUATE THE STRUCTURAL ANCHORS TO ENSURE THEIR INTEGRITY.
ON JUNE 22ND, 2023, BRAD DOHERTY PE OF INSIGHT STRUCTURES SAYS, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT IF THE AWNING WERE TO BE REPLACED, IT COULD NOT BE REINSTALLED IN THE SIMILAR MANNER AND AESTHETIC AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT WIND LOAD REQUIREMENTS.
THE STEEL RODS ARE NOT STRUCTURALLY SUFFICIENT TO RESIST UPLIFT LOADING CONDITIONS.
THE CONNECTIONS ARE ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE TO RESIST CURRENTLY ACCEPTED DESIGN LOADS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE AWNING SHOULD NOT BE INSTALLED WITHOUT REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING BRICK TO PROVIDE STRUCTURALLY ACCEPTABLE ATTACHMENTS
[00:20:01]
AND WATERPROOFING FOR THE BUILDING ENVELOPE.IT IS OUR OPINION THAT TO BEST PROTECT THE LONGEVITY AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING, THE AWNING SHOULD NOT BE REINSTALLED TO MATCH THE RECENTLY REMOVED AWNING.
IN A LETTER FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER IN EXHIBIT FOUR, IT IS STATED THAT THE AWNING WAS BUILT IN 1995 AND QUOTE, IT WAS OUR BEST GUESS OF WHAT THE ORIGINAL WOULD'VE LOOKED LIKE.
NO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS, NO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, AND NO BUILDING PERMITS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS AWNING IN 1995.
AND IN HIS LETTER, THE PREVIOUS OWNER CLAIMS TO HAVE PERFORMED EXTENSIVE REPAIRS TO THE AWNING HIMSELF.
ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO, THIS AWNING WAS CONSTRUCTED OUTTA PLYWOOD, INSTALLED INTO THE BRICK WITH QUARTER INCH BOLTS AND RELIED ON THE ORIGINAL SUSPENSION ANCHORS FOR SUPPORT.
NONE OF THIS WAS INSTALLED INTO ANY WOOD OR STEEL STRUCTURE BEHIND THE MASONRY, JUST THE BRICK FACADE ITSELF.
IT HAD NO THROUGH FLASHING TO PROTECT FROM WATER DAMAGE.
AS A RESULT, THE AWNING CAUSED CONSIDERABLE AND GROWING DAMAGE TO THE ORIGINAL MASONRY MORTAR, ORIGINAL WINDOWS AND TRIM.
PLEASE SEE APPENDICES A THROUGH FA CONSENT TO ENCROACH FROM 1994 WAS MADE A YEAR BEFORE THIS AWNING WAS BUILT.
THE AWNING EXTENDS THREE FEET FURTHER OVER THE CITY OF HOUSTON, SIDEWALK C APPENDIX H.
IN HIS LETTER, THE PREVIOUS OWNER STATES QUOTE, THE CONSENT RELATED TO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING, NOT THE AWNING.
NO DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT APPROVES THE INCREASE IN ENCROACHMENT OVER THE CITY OF HOUSTON RIGHT AWAY IN 1995.
THE CONSENT ITSELF MANDATES THAT AT ITS EXPIRATION, QUOTE, THE OWNER SHALL REMOVE THE IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY AT THE OWNER'S SOLE COST AND EXPENSE.
THIS CONSENT EXPIRES JANUARY 18TH, 2024 IN APPROXIMATELY SEVEN MONTHS, THERE'S A STRONG PRECEDENT IN OLD SIX WARD FOR THE PERMANENT REMOVAL OF THE AWNING.
WE HAVE PROVIDED SEVERAL EXAMPLES IN APPENDIX.
I NOTE THE PRESERVED ROSETTE WALL ANCHORS ON PAGE 24 AND 25, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE LEFT ON OUR BUILDING.
OUR PROPOSAL IN APPENDIX J IS TO CLEAN UP THE BRICK AND TRIM AROUND THE AWNING, FLASH AND WATERPROOF APPROPRIATELY, AND ADD A NEW HISTORICAL RESPECTFUL TRIM WHERE THE AWNING USED TO BE, THE ORIGINAL ANCHORS AND OTHER HISTORIC MATERIAL WILL BE RESTORED AND WILL REMAIN PART OF THE BUILDING.
WE HOPE THE APPEALS BOARD WILL RECOGNIZE THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE AWNING AND OUR PROPOSALS FOR REPAIRS IS NOT DONE OUT OF CONTEMPT, BUT RATHER TO ENSURE THAT THE ENTIRE BUILDING AS A WHOLE IS PROPERLY PRESERVED STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND SAFE FOR ITS OCCUPANTS, NEIGHBORS, AND PEDESTRIANS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES, I JUST WANT TO, UH, CLARIFY A FEW THINGS AS, FIRST OFF, LET ME SAY, AS SOMEONE WHO, UH, NOT TOO LONG AGO REPURPOSED A 1920 DRUG STORE IN HEIGHTS SOUTH TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WHICH I NOW CALL HOME, I HAVE AN APPRECIATION AND A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR SOMEONE WHO UNDERTAKES SUCH A PROJECT.
UM, IT'S MORE DIFFICULT THAN ANYTHING ELSE THAT I'VE EVER HAD TO DO, UH, AS A REMODELER.
SO WHAT I WANNA UNDERSTAND IS A COUPLE THINGS THAT APPEARED, UM, IN READING THE APPLICATION THAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR MORE TIME TO STUDY, UH, WHAT WOULD'VE BEEN APPROPRIATE OR IS DID I MISTAKE THAT? THAT WAS THE REQUEST THAT WE MADE AT THE TIME.
WE APPLIED FOR AN APPEAL AND WE WEREN'T, IT WASN'T CLEAR TO US IF AT THE TIME OF, UM, APPLYING FOR APPEAL, WE HAD TO HAVE EVERYTHING IN ORDER.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO HAVE, UH, PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS.
I'M NOT A PROFESSIONAL, I'M NOT A CONTRACTOR, I'M NOT A ENGINEER.
SO WE WANTED TO HAVE SEVERAL WEEKS SO THAT WE COULD HIRE PEOPLE TO DO PROPER INVESTIGATIONS.
SO AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T, WE ARE NOT REQUESTING ANY MORE TIME.
AND ONE OTHER QUESTION, I THINK MAYBE THAT I THOUGHT I READ IN THIS, THAT THE BRICK ON THERE IS A VENEER.
THERE'S FRAMING IN THERE, WHICH IS WHY, EXCUSE ME, THE BRICK WOULD'VE TO BE REMOVED TO PROPERLY ANCHOR.
UM, I I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
UH, ELLIOT, UM, THE, UH, THE MATERIAL, THE, UH, ENGINEERS REPORTS YOUR APPENDIX J WITH A PROPOSAL, UH, IT SEEMS TO ME NOW THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE HHC, YOU, YOU WEREN'T EVEN THERE AT THE HHC, UH, FOR THEM.
YES, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND.
I'M, BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF, UH, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT THE SHOULD BE TO RESOLVE TODAY, BUT KIND OF PROCEDURALLY WHAT HAPPENED WAS, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY NEED TO TAKE THIS DOWN.
IT HAPPENED, THEN IT GOES TO HHC TO SEE IF HAVING IT GONE IS APPROPRIATE.
THEY DECIDED NO, AND IT, IT LOOKED LIKE THEY KIND OF IMMEDIATELY DECIDED, YOU HAVE TO PUT IT BACK WITHOUT REALLY ANY DISCUSSION OR PROPOSAL FROM YOU ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVES OR,
[00:25:01]
OR ARGUING WHY YOU THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE WITH A DIFFERENT KIND OF FIX.IS THAT KIND OF HOW IT HAPPENED? YES, SIR.
SO, UM, I I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS TODAY WE'RE GONNA DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THAT CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED.
AND I THINK IF IT'S NOT, WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU GO AGAIN TO THE HHC, UNFORTUNATELY, AND PRE, I MEAN, BECAUSE OF THE TIME, NOT BECAUSE IT'S UNFORTUNATE OTHERWISE, AND PRESENT YOUR, YOUR FULLER BODY OF EVIDENCE WITH YOUR PROPOSAL AND, AND TAKE A CHANCE AT HAVING THAT BEING APPROVED.
BUT AS OF NOW, THEY DID RULE THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE NOT TO, NOT TO HAVE AN AWNING THERE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A, YOU'VE GOT A ROBUST DEBATE ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE DECIDING ON THAT TODAY ABOUT THAT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OR JUST THE CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION.
UM, BUT THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTION ABOUT THE MATERIAL WE HAVE AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY SAW IT.
DOES LEGAL HAVE AN ANSWER ON WHAT, WHAT HE JUST SPECIFIED? YOU KNOW, AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE THAT'S PRESENTED BEFORE YOU AND EITHER MAKE A DECISION, DEFER IT BACK TO THE HISTORIC COMMISSION FOR FURTHER STUDY AND ACTION, JUST LIKE A COURT, UM, OR LIKE I SAY, MAKE A DECISION TO EITHER UPHOLD THEIR DECISION OR REVERSE IT.
I THOUGHT WE WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE THAT WASN'T PRESENTED TO THE HHC THOUGH.
WELL, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE WITH THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISION, I THINK THAT THAT CHANGE WAS ST WITHIN STATE LAW, UM, GIVES YOU THAT OPTION.
WE HAVE, BUT WE STILL HAVE THE OPTION ALSO THAT IF WE FEEL LIKE THE HHC SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE'RE SEEING NOW TO SAY IT NEEDS TO GO BACK.
UH, THE SECOND SPEAKER I HAVE IS MR. ERIC PIERCE, LISTED AS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, MAKE SURE THE MIC, WHICH IS GREEN AT THE MOMENT THAT THE MIC IS GREEN.
UH, MY NAME IS ERIC PIERCE AND I AM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
UM, AND MOSTLY I WANTED TO BE HERE TODAY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAD ABOUT THE PROCESS.
UM, COUPLE OF THINGS I WANTED TO CLARIFY, UH, ARE THAT THE, THE PROPERTY IS, IT'S ONE PROPERTY WITH TWO STRUCTURES ON IT.
UM, AND ONE STRUCTURE IS THE BRICK BUILDING THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY.
AND THE OTHER STRUCTURE IS A SMALL, UH, WOOD FRAMED HOUSE THAT SITS, UH, SOUTH OF THE BRICK STRUCTURE THAT IS, BUT IS ALL ON THE SAME PROPERTY.
THAT HOUSE IS TECHNICALLY SEVEN 16 SILVER.
AND THE BRICK PROPERTY, THE, THE BRICK STRUCTURE IS TECHNICALLY 1819 CAN STREET.
UM, BUT THE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE IS, IS A SINGLE PLAT.
AND, AND, AND FOR, UM, I GUESS OFFICIAL PURPOSES, THE ADDRESS IS SEVEN 16 SILVER.
UM, THE, THE, THE PART, UM, SO WHEN WE, BEFORE WE SUBMITTED THE CEO, WE WERE DOING SOME, JUST SOME REPAIR WORK, UH, AND SOME OTHER WORK ON, ON THE WHITE HOUSE, UH, OR ON THE, THE WOOD FRAMED HOUSE, NOT THE BRICK STRUCTURE.
AS GENERAL CONTRACTORS AND, AND AS THE OWNERS, UM, WITH ME, UM, WE DID NOT TOUCH THE BRICK STRUCTURE AT ALL.
UH, WE WERE NOT IN VIOLATION IN ANY WAY ON THE BRICK STRUCTURE.
UM, WE ADDED A SMALL, UH, SHED ON THE BACK OF THE, OF THE WOOD FRAME STRUCTURE.
UM, AND WE WERE OPERATING UNDER THE, THE IDEA THAT THE, THE SHED WAS A, UM, A SEPARATE STRUCTURE AND WE DIDN'T, THAT, WE DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT FOR THAT.
UM, AND SO WE, WE WERE DOING THAT AND THEN, UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AN INSPECTOR CAME AND SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE, EVEN THOUGH WE ATTACHED IT TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE, WE DIDN'T REMOVE ANY OF THE SIDING OR ANYTHING ON THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT STUFF NEEDS TO BE PERMITTED AND ALL THAT STUFF.
AND THAT'S WHEN WE WENT TO, UH, APPLY FOR THE COA ALONG, SINCE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO APPLY FOR THE COA TO DO THAT WORK.
WE WENT AHEAD AND ADDED THE AWNING PIECE TO THE OVERALL APPLICATION FOR THE COA.
UM, AND BEFORE WE TOUCHED ANYTHING ON, BEFORE WE TOUCHED THE AWNING OR ANYTHING AT ALL ON THE BRICK BUILDING, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAD, UH, A ZOOM MEETING AND WE HAD, UM, DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PRESERVATION AND, UM, AND THEY, LIKE THEY SAID, THEY HAD PETE TAKE A LOOK, UM, AND THROUGH THEIR PERMISSION, UM, BECAUSE OF THE, THE IMMINENT DANGER OF, OF THE ACTUAL AWNING, UM, AT THAT POINT WE TOOK IT OUT.
WE HAVE A, YOU KNOW, IN THE, IN THE PRESENTATION, I THINK WE HAVE A, THE EMAIL THAT SHOWS THAT WE HAD PERMISSION BEFORE THE MEETING TO TAKE DOWN THE, UM, THE AWNING.
[00:30:01]
WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT WE HAD NOT LIKE, TOUCHED THE AWNING OR ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF, OF WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE OFFICIAL CHANNELS, UM, FOR, FOR ALL OF THAT STUFF.UM, AND THEN, OH, THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION.
I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT DOWN.
UM, WELL, ANYWAYS, MY, SO ANYWAYS, MY, MY GOAL HERE IS, IS, UH, AS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO ANSWER ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAD ABOUT THE PROCESS OR, OR, UM, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING ELSE THAT, UH, ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. PIERCE? NO, NOT AT THIS TIME.
I LIVE AT 1816 LAW BOOK JUST AROUND THE CORNER FROM 1716 SILVER.
UM, I, I, I, I WANT TO, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE, THAT THE BUILDING HAD ORIGINAL BUILDING HAD AN AWNING, AND THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TYPICALLY HAD AWNINGS OF THAT FORM.
WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE, THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN PORCHES AND AND AWNINGS.
BEFORE I DO THAT, LET ME CLARIFY THE ISSUE OF THE ENCROACHMENT.
MARK PART SENT ME A COPY OF THE CITY, UH, THE CITY ORDINANCE, WHICH GAVE THEM PERMISSION TO ENCROACH WHAT THIS CONCERN WAS, FOUR SEPARATE BUILDINGS.
MARK HY AND, AND DENISE PARKER, WHO, WHO LATER BECAME SILVER STREET PROPERTIES, THEY PURCHASED THE BUILDING PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THEY PURCHASED THE BUILDING.
THEY HAD A SURVEY, AND THAT SURVEY SHOWED THAT FOUR SEPARATE BUILDINGS ENCROACHED INTO THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY ON SILVER STREET.
ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS IS THE, IS THE GROCERY STORE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
ONE OF THOSE, THE BUILDING ON LUBBOCK AT THE CORNER OF LUBBOCK AND, AND, AND, AND, AND SILVER AND ENCROACHED ALSO INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY ON LUBBOCK.
THE GROCERY STORE BUILDING DID NOT AC ENCROACH ON CANE.
SO THE PERMISSION FROM THE CITY TO ENCROACH CONCERNED THE RIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES TO ENCROACH ON SABINE AND FOR THE BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF LUBBOCK.
AND I SAID ME, I MEANT SILVER TO ENCROACH IN, INTO THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY ON SILVER, AND FOR THE BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF LUBBOCK AND SILVER TO ENCROACH INTO THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY ON LUBBOCK.
AND, AND HAD THE, THE, THE GROCERY STORE DID NOT ENCROACH IN ON CANE, ALTHOUGH IT HAD AN AWNING ON CANE THAT, THAT COVERED THE, THE, THE SIDEWALK AND THE SIDEWALK, OF COURSE, ALSO THE SIDEWALK, JUST LIKE THE AWNING IS ON CITY PROPERTY.
SO, AND, AND, AND IT'S THAT, SO, SO THE, THE PERMISSION TO ENCROACH HAD NOTHING, WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE AWNING.
IT HAD TO DO WITH THE, WITH THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES.
I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PORCHES AND, AND THE AWNING.
OUR DESIGN GUIDELINES TALK A LOT ABOUT PORCHES.
THE PORCH IS A, IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING.
IF WE DISCOVER THAT WATER INTRUSION HAS CAUSED DAMAGE IN A PORCH, THAT'S AN EXPECTATION THAT WE WILL EITHER RE REPAIR THE PORCH OR REPLACE THE PORCH.
IT'S UNACCEPTABLE JUST TO RIP IT OFF AND THROW IT AWAY.
NOW, AWNINGS IN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ARE, AWNINGS ARE TO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS LIKE PORCHES ARE TO HOUSES.
AND IF, IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF DAMAGE TO THE AWNING, THEN, THEN IT SHOULD BE EITHER REPLACED OR REPAIRED.
AND JUST LIKE PORCHES, IT'S UNACCEPTABLE JUST TO RIP THEM OFF AND THROW THEM AWAY.
THEY SHOULD BE EITHER REPAIRED OR REPLACED.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. PARKER? NO, I HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER, MS. STEPHANIE BOONE.
UH, THE LAST SPEAKER I HAVE IS A MR. MARK BOONE.
[00:35:02]
UM, UH, WELL, I'M SORRY.LET ME DO, UH, MY NAME IS MARK BOONE.
UM, I WOULD JUST WANNA MAKE ONE POINT IS THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS A SIMILARITY BETWEEN PORCHES AND AWNINGS, UH, THE PORCH TYPICALLY, OR I GUESS EXCLUSIVELY, UH, DOES NOT EXTEND OVER PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND DOES NOT POSE A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE AS A SUSPENDED AWNING.
I WILL, I, I ALSO AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SIXTH WARD AND THE BLOCK THAT THIS IS PARTICULARLY ON HAS HAD A, I THINK IT'S FINALLY BEEN RESOLVED, BUT THERE WAS A SURVEY PROBLEM FOR THAT ENTIRE CITY BLOCK FOR A LONG TIME.
SO THAT MIGHT BE WHY THERE WAS THIS PROBLEM WITH ALL THE BUILDINGS ON THAT BLOCK.
I REMEMBER THEM HAVING TO WORK THROUGH THAT
IS THERE ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTARY OR A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I DO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND PERHAPS LEGAL.
AND MR. CHAIR, COULD I ADD THAT WHILE STAFF IS COMING TO THE PODIUM, I, I WAS OVER THERE DISCUSSING WITH THEM.
SOME OF THIS INFORMATION DOES NOT SOUND NEW TO ME.
I'D LIKE, UM, MS. ARSLAN TO BE ABLE TO CLARIFY WHAT WAS HEARD AND DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD AS, AS THE APPLICANTS NOTED, HE WASN'T PRESENT, WHICH MEANS THEY DID NOT HAVE THE FULL DOCUMENT AND APPENDIX.
I STILL BELIEVE THAT AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD, YOU CAN CONSIDER SOME OF THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, BUT IF YOU FEEL IT'S, IT WOULD'VE BEEN HELPFUL TO HHC, YOU CAN STILL REMAND THAT BACK.
SHOULD I REPLY TO THAT? YEAH, SO WHATEVER.
UM, SO HE DID NOT HAVE THE INSPECTION REPORT AND ANY, ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WAS NOT THERE BECAUSE, UM, I BELIEVE YOU, NO ONE, NO ONE ATTENDED.
UM, AND SO, BUT AS FOR THE ENCROACHMENT, AND THEN WHETHER IT'S ORIGINAL OR NOT, WE KNOW THAT THE BUILDING HAD A CANOPY ORIGINALLY.
THE ONE THEY HAD WAS NOT ORIGINAL.
THERE, THERE IS A PICTURE, I BELIEVE IN THE NINETIES WHERE THE CANOPY WAS NOT THERE AND THEN IT WAS REINSTALLED.
UM, SO THAT INFORMATION, THE COMMISSION ALREADY KNEW.
UM, AND THEN THE STATE OF THE CANOPY, THE, WE ALREADY HAD PICTURES AND, UH, AND OUR INSPECTOR VERIFIED THAT IT'S IN, IN BAD CONDITION.
UM, BUT I THINK THEIR BASIS, UH, WAS BECAUSE THE CANOPY WAS ORIGINAL TO THE BUILDING, THEY WANTED TO, UM, THEY ASKED THE APPLICANT TO PUT IT BACK, BUT HE WAS NOT THERE AGAIN TO GIVE ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT.
AND I THINK THE PART WHERE HE'S SAYING THAT THERE WAS AN, AN, UM, A STRUCTURAL REPORT ABOUT THE INABILITY OF PUTTING A CANOPY BACK BECAUSE IT STRUCTURALLY WON'T HOLD IT.
THAT WAS NOT, UM, HEARD, UM, AT THE COMMISSION.
UH, ELLIOT, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
I THINK THE CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION SAID REPLACE THE AWNING, BUT THAT JUST MEANS IN YOUR MIND AND AWNING, I GUESS, AND ALSO SUBJECT TO DISCUSSION WITH STAFF AND STAFF APPROVAL IS THAT, AND YES, BECAUSE WE, UM, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE ENCROACHMENT, BECAUSE WHAT'S THERE WAS NOT ORIGINAL.
WE, WE HAVE TO KIND OF DO RESEARCH AND SIT WITH THE APPLICANT AND DECIDE WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE DESIGN.
AND, UM, WE HAVEN'T FOUND A HISTORIC PHOTO THAT SHOWS, UM, THE AWNING ORIGINALLY.
AND THAT'S WHY WE LEFT IT, THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS THE DESIGN.
WE DON'T, WE DON'T, UM, WE, WE CAN'T CONFIRM WHAT DESIGN YET.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, DO YOU ALL UNDERSTAND THAT INSTRUCTION WAS FROM HHC? WOULD THAT INCLUDE APPROVING A DESIGN AS THEY'RE PROPOSING NOW WITH NO AWNING OR KIND OF A NO, NO.
THEY WANTED AN AWNING AND BUT NO SET DIMENSIONS OR SIZE OR STYLE NECESSARILY? NO.
I DO SAY THAT YOU DO IN YOUR FILE HAVE A TAX RECORD FROM 1972 SHOWING AN AWNING, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE ORIGINAL AWNING, BUT YOU DO HAVE A HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPH IN THE DOCUMENTATION YOU FORWARDED SHOWING A TAX RECORD SHOWING THE, FROM 1972.
AND I MEANT WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE ORIGINAL, ORIGINAL AWNING.
UM, IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER, SINCE THE
[00:40:01]
HOMEOWNER WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE HHC UM, MEETING, WAS THERE ANY CONVERSATION AMONGST THE COMMISSIONERS ABOUT DEFERRING? IT WAS USED TO BE BECAUSE, SO THAT THE HOMEOWNER MAY BE ABLE TO, TO ATTEND AND PRESENT THEIR CASE, NO, UM, AND LIKE THESE KIND OF ALL OVER THE PLACE.SO, SO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ALTERATIONS DONE TO THE WOOD FRAME HOME ARE FINE, YES.
THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO THAT.
NOW IT GETS A LITTLE BIT, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, 'CAUSE I'VE THOUGHT I'VE GOTTEN MIXED SIGNALS ABOUT WHETHER THE ORIGINAL BUILDING HAD AN AWNING OR NOT, AND AT THE TIME IT WAS CONSTRUCTED AND AS IT YOUR BELIEF OR STAFF'S BELIEF THAT INDEED IT DID HAVE AN AWNING.
AND I DON'T KNOW ROMAN, IF YOU WANNA GO TO THE SANBORN DOES.
SO WE BELIEVE FROM THE SANBORN THAT THERE WAS AN AWNING OKAY.
SO, AND THEN IT WAS REPLACED BY A PRIOR OWNER AT SOME NOT TOO CERTAIN TIME, AND THEN, UM, BECAME DANGEROUS AND WAS REMOVED BY THE CURRENT OWNER.
UM, SO THIS KIND OF GETS PERHAPS A LITTLE QUESTION FOR LEGAL AND IF THERE IS A, MY EXPERIENCE, IF THERE IS A LATER ALTERATION DONE TO A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THAT THAT ALTERATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO BE REMOVED.
I MEAN, IT'S BASICALLY ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL TO DO SO.
I DON'T RECALL ANY INSTANCE OF WHEN I WAS ON THE COMMISSIONER SINCE THEN THAT THAT OWNER WAS REQUIRED TO BILL BACK EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAD REMOVED, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW.
SO IF HE, A, AGAIN, THIS WAS AN EMERGENCY THING AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS REMOVED, BUT LET'S SAY IT WAS NOT AN EMERGENCY.
HE APPLIED FOR A REGULAR C OF A ASKING TO REMOVE A NON-ORIGINAL, UM, MATERIAL, WE WOULD HAVE APPROVED THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY.
AND I, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD'VE ASKED HIM TO PUT IT BACK, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME POWER THAT MM-HMM
AND SO THEY, THEY HAVE THAT POWER.
UM, PERSON, I LIKE THE IDEA THERE BEING AN AWNING THERE, BUT UNDERSTANDING THE CHALLENGES TO BUILDING IT AND MEETING CURRENT WIND LOAD REQUIREMENTS, WHICH I KNOW YOU'RE EXEMPT FROM A LOT OF CODES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT THAT'S ONE THAT I THINK WOULD BE
SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER TO EVEN PUT THIS OUT THERE AS A POSSIBILITY IF THE HOMEOWNERS WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT TO IT RATHER THAN HAVING TO DO THE KIND OF STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS REMOVING BRICK TO THE ACCURATE TO THE FRAMING.
AND IT MAY BE AN IMPEDIMENT TO DOING, TO PUTTING COLUM SUPPORTS UNDERNEATH IT THAT YOU COULD GET THE WIND LOAD REQUIREMENTS, I THINK MET WITHOUT, TO A DEGREE.
THERE'S STILL SOME OF THE ISSUES HOW IT ATTACHES TO THE BUILDING.
UM, BUT THEN YOU MIGHT BE PUTTING COLUMNS IN THE MIDDLE OF A SIDEWALK THAT CREATES ANOTHER HAZARD.
AND THAT'S PRECISELY WHY I THINK THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC DESIGN BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY.
AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO DO RESEARCH WITH THE APPLICANT TO KIND OF VERIFY WHAT'S THE DESIGN.
AND, UM, WE KNOW THAT THE, WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS A CANOPY, BUT WE'RE NOT SURE WAS IT LIKE, UM, AND WHICH PART ON BOTH ELEVATIONS ON ONE ELEVATION.
AND, AND AGAIN, THAT THAT IS WHY THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC DESIGN, UM, IMPLEMENTED BY HAHC, THE BLAND.
UM, IF WE WERE TO DECIDE THAT AN AWNING WEREN'T NECESSARY TO GO BACK ONTO THE BUILDING, WOULD STAFF BE INVOLVED WITH THE DESIGN OF THE TRIM THAT WOULD REPLACE IT? I THINK IF YOU ALL WERE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DO THAT, YES, YOU COULD INSTRUCT THAT STAFF COULD, UM, REVIEW THE TRIM AND APPROVE THAT.
I WOULD THINK THAT STAFF WOULD HAVE THE DISCRETION.
I MIGHT ASK THAT YOU LEAVE THAT IN THERE FOR THEM TO TAKE IT TO HHC IF IT'S AN AESTHETIC CHOICE OR DISTINCTION.
THEY FEEL THEY CAN'T MAKE GIVEN THE SIXTH WARD DESIGN GUIDELINES, BUT, UM, THEY DO HAVE, IN THIS CASE SOME DESIGN GUIDELINES TO GO BY.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION IS THAT IT'S, IT'S PERMISSION
[00:45:01]
TO DO THINGS A CERTAIN WAY.SO, I MEAN, YOU CAN GET ANOTHER CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND ANOTHER CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION THAT SORT OF SUPERSEDES THIS.
I MEAN, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING PARTICULARLY WRONG WITH WHAT THE HHC DID, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANTS WOULD LIKE IT TO LOOK DIFFERENTLY AND DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE THAT CASE THE HHC.
SO I MEAN, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE APPROACH OF MAYBE WORKING WITH STAFF AND COMING UP WITH SOME, UH, AWNING THAT THEY THINK MEET MEETS THE, UH, RE CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION.
BUT IF YOU'RE UNSATISFIED WITH WHAT STAFF, UH, MAKES AVAILABLE TO YOU AND THINKS THEY CAN APPROVE, THEN I THINK THE AVENUE WOULD STILL BE OPEN TO, AGAIN, APPLIED THE HHC WITH YOUR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND, UH, AND, AND, UH, AND, UM, PLANS TO SEE IF YOU CAN GET WHAT YOU DO WANT APPROVED.
BUT, UM, OTHERWISE, UH, I, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT THE HHC DID, BUT I, I THINK YOU ALL, UM, HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO, TO TRY ANOTHER APPROACH WITH THEM.
BUT I THINK IT'S IT'S FOR THEM WITH A GREATER EXPERTISE AND, UM, A COLLECTION OF PEOPLE TO EVALUATE IT, NOT US.
I, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE APPLICATION.
BOTH BUILDINGS ARE TIED TOGETHER IN THIS APPLICATION.
DO WE HAVE, IF THE, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE BOARD DECIDES, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY OF BREAKING THESE APART SO THAT THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH ONE WHILE THE OTHER ONE IS IN QUESTION? SO THE THE OTHER, I THINK THAT THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THE OTHER BUILDING.
SO LET'S SAY THEY WANNA GO AND BUY A PERMIT FOR THE WORK THAT THEY ALREADY DID ON THE WOOD FRAME BUILDING.
I DON'T SO THE, THE HOLD UP ON THIS C OF A IS NOT PREVENTING THEM FROM WORKING ON THE HOUSE, WHICH HAS APPROVED, UH, ACTIONS.
AND I BELIEVE, UM, THERE'S NO, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THERE'S NO TIMELINE, LET'S SAY TO WHEN THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PUT THE CAN THE AWNING BACK.
UH, I THINK HHC DID NOT PLACE A TIMELINE ON THAT.
AND ANOTHER
UM, IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO NOT RESTORE IT, I WOULD ASSUME THE PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO INFILL THAT AREA WITH BRICK THAT MATCHES AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE, THE OTHER BRICK.
BUT HAS ANYTHING BEEN DONE TO, TO PROTECT THAT FROM WATER INTRUSION AND SO FORTH? NO, SIR.
AND THAT'S ONE OF MY MAIN CONCERNS IS THE HOMEOWNER, IS THAT PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME WILL BOONE NO, SIR.
AND THAT'S ONE OF OUR MAIN CONCERNS IS THE HOMEOWNERS, IS THAT THE BUILDING IS SITTING THERE, IT'S ALMOST LIKE AN OPEN WOUND.
IT'S BEEN RAINING, WATER IS JUST GOING INSIDE OF THE BUILDING.
WE'RE TIED UP IN THIS PROCESS, ITS APPEALS PROCESS, AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING.
AND WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING TO DO FIRST IS TO JUST SEAL THAT TRIM SO THAT THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, CAN NOT BE DAMAGED FURTHER AT THIS POINT.
AND YEAH, I MEAN, OUR MAIN CONCERN IS THE BUILDING, UM, THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING AND PUBLIC SAFETY, YOU KNOW, AND WHEN THE, THE THING WENT BEFORE HHC, THE WHOLE CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT AESTHETICS.
IT WAS LIKE, YOU CAN'T PUT A PLASTIC AWNING ON, THEY'RE GONNA PUT A TARP ON, YOU KNOW, AND THERE WAS THIS ALMOST PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST US AS HOMEOWNERS WHEN OUR INTENTIONS ALL ALONG WAS THE SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORS, OUR COMMUNITY, AND, UM, THE BUILDING ITSELF.
WELL, I, I WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT THE DEPENDENCY OF THIS PROCESS KEEPS THEM FROM DOING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OR PRESERVATION OF THE BUILDING.
I I DON'T THINK THEY'D BE TAGGED FOR THAT OR STOPPED FOR THAT.
SO, I MEAN, I WOULDN'T EXPECT THAT.
NO, HE'S, UM, HE'S ABLE TO REPAIR.
I DON'T, BUT I DON'T THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS.
WE, YOU, THERE WAS NO PROBLEM.
LIKE, AND THAT'S WHAT I, I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT HE ALREADY GOT A BUILDING PERMIT.
WE RELEASED A HOLD, SO THAT WOULDN'T HAVE STOPPED HIM FROM DOING THAT.
THE HHC ONLY ASKED FOR THE AWNING TO BE REINSTALLED.
IT APPROVED ALL THE OTHER WORK.
SO WHATEVER HE WANTS, LET, LET'S SAY HE WANTS TO, UM, ADD SOMETHING, HE CAN STILL GET A PERMIT.
THEY'LL CALL US IF WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT, WE'LL RELEASE THE HOLD.
UM, THIS COR DID NOT STOP HIM FROM THAT.
RIGHT? I MEAN, AGAIN, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION, BUT THE CFR IS NOT A, A, A MANDATE,
[00:50:01]
ACTUALLY, IT'S A, UH, PERMISSION THAT WILL ENABLE YOU TO GET A PERMIT.SO IF YOU'RE NOT SEEKING A PERMIT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IF YOU GET DENIED A C OF A, THERE'S SOME ISSUES WITH TAX CREDITS AND OTHER WAYS THE ORDINANCE TREATS YOU, BUT YOU'RE NOT MANDATED TO, TO DO THINGS AS INSTRUCTED IN THE C OF R.
IT'S A PATH FORWARD TO CONTINUE GETTING PERMITTED AND HAVE PERMISSION TO WORK ON THE PROPERTY IF, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO TRY IT ANOTHER WAY, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DO BUILD AN AWNING THERE, WHICH HAS BEEN HIGHLY RECOMMENDED BY THE HHC AND YOUR NEIGHBORS, THAT YOU WOULD, YOU'D SEEK PERMISSION AGAIN TO DO IT THE WAY YOU WANT TO, BUT YOU'RE NOT UNDER ANY MANDATE RIGHT NOW TO STICK THAT SAME AWNING BACK, I DON'T BELIEVE.
WILL BOONE, I HAVE A QUESTION.
COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT? JUST, UH, MY QUESTION IS SO THAT AT THIS POINT WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO REPLACE THE AWNING AS IT WAS.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE WHAT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION, UH, WELL, ASIDE FROM BEING THE ORDINANCE, HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW AND FAILURE TO GET A C OF A OR DOING WORK WITHOUT A C OF A CAN, UH, SUBJECT YOU TO SOME FINES OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES BY THE CITY, THAT TYPICALLY IS NOT THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE, UH, CERTIFICATES.
IT'S TYPICALLY THE MAIN IMPORTANCE IS IT ALLOWS THE REST OF THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD AND ISSUE PERMITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THE HHC SAYS, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS WRONG, THIS IS WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
IT FEELS LIKE YOU'RE GETTING, UH, MANDATED AND YOU'LL BE, YOU KNOW, HAVE SOME ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY AGAINST YOU IF YOU DON'T DO THAT.
BUT ACTUALLY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A, A PATH FORWARD, UH, TO ALLOW PERMITS TO ISSUE AGAIN, IF, IF THOSE, UM, CONDITIONS ARE MET.
SO, UM, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
AND SO IF, IF THAT GIVES YOU ANY, THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, THAT'S, THANK YOU.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO REVIEW PAGES 24 AND 25 REALLY QUICKLY JUST TO SHOW WHAT SORT OF THE PRECEDENT IS FOR SOLUTIONS OF BUILDINGS IN THIS SITUATION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? UH, MR. CHAIR, WHILE STAFF IS PULLING THAT UP, IF I COULD CLARIFY TOO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND REMEDIATION.
UM, UH, BOARD MEMBER ELLIOT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN THAT IT IS A PATH FORWARD TO GET PERMITS, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO FIX THE AWNING.
OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE, IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR BUILDING PLANS HAVE TO MEET WHAT WAS APPROVED AT HHC.
UM, YOU COULD GO FORWARD WITHOUT THE AWNING AT THIS POINT FOR OTHER ELEMENTS HOLDING THAT ONE IN ABEYANCE FOR THE TIME BEING WHILE WE WORK THIS WHOLE PROCESS OUT.
BUT ULTIMATELY THAT IS A DESIGN ELEMENT THEY WANT BACK, THAT THEY WANT TO SEE BACK.
SO I, I THINK YOU GOT TO THAT POINT RIGHT AT THE END OF YOUR, OF YOUR COMMENTS.
I MEAN, IF THEY DID DO ANY FUTURE WORK ON THAT FACADE THAT AFFECTED ANY EXTERIOR FEATURES, YOU CAN BE PRETTY SURE THEY'RE GONNA SUBJECT THAT TO HAVING THE, THE AWNING REPLACED IN SOME, SOME MANNER.
IT'S THE GREEN LIGHT FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT OFFICE TO SAY, CHECK HAHC LOOKED AT THIS, WHAT DID THEY REQUIRE? AND THEY'LL, THEY'LL REVIEW YOUR PLANS WITH AN EYE TO THAT.
AND I JUST WANNA CLARIFY FOR THE AUDIENCE, UM, TECHNICALLY IF YOU WANNA SPEAK, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO CALL OUR ATTENTION.
YOU DON'T JUST WALK STRAIGHT UP.
HOPEFULLY MY LAST, UM, HERE'S SOME IMAGES, UH, ILLUSTRATING THE WHAT'S HAPPENED TO SIMILAR BUILDINGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I HAVE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WAS THE SECOND SPEAKER, MR. PIERCE? YES.
I, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT AGAIN AS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
UM, SO MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE COR WAS THAT WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH WHATEVER PERMITTING WE NEEDED FOR THE WOOD FRAME HOUSE ON THE, ON THE, BECAUSE THIS IS ALL ONE PROPERTY, AND WE SUBMITTED THE COA FOR, FOR BOTH STRUCTURES.
UM, THE CO THE COR WOULD ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE, THE REPAIRS THAT WE NEED TO DO WITH, BECAUSE WE DO NEED A PERMIT, UH, TO, TO, TO DO THE THING THAT WE DID, UM, THAT WE GOT APPROVED FOR, UH, ON THE, ON THE WOOD FRAME HOUSE.
BUT FOR THE BRICK HOUSE, THE, PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE ISSUE WITH THE AWNING AND EVERYTHING, WE WOULD NEED TO GET A PERMIT TO REPLACE THE AWNING, BUT TO JUST REPLACE LIKE WINDOW TRIM,
[00:55:01]
WE DON'T NEED A PERMIT FOR THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE.AND SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE THERE'S NOTHING IF, IF, IF, IF Y'ALL TELL US NO, THE LIKE, OR WHOEVER, IF, IF, IF WE GET PERMISSION TO NOT RESTORE THE AWNING, THEN WE CAN JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH REPLACING THE TRIM, DOING THE FLASHING AND TRIM, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WAS, THAT OVER THE PARTS THAT ARE EXPOSED AT THIS POINT.
THOSE ARE JUST AESTHETIC ISSUES FOR HHC, NOT STRUCTURAL ISSUES FOR, FOR ANY SORT OF, FOR ANY OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
JUST REPLACING ROTTED MOLDINGS AND TRIMS. EXACTLY.
AS LONG AS YOU'RE REPLACING THEM IN KIND.
AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE WOOD, IT CAN BE A SYNTHETIC AS LONG AS IT'S THE SAME PROFILE DIMENSIONALLY, UH, SO ON, SO FORTH.
NOW THAT'S ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND DOESN'T REQUIRE A C OF A ADDITIONALLY, IF YOU HAVE ANY INTERIOR WORK ON THAT STRUCTURE THAT IS, REQUIRES A PERMIT AND INSPECTIONS, YOU CAN PROCEED WITH ANY OF THAT.
WELL, THAT'S THE, I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION RIGHT NOW IS AT THE, AT THE MOMENT ON THE, SPECIFICALLY ON THE BRICK BUILDING, THERE IS NO OTHER, THE ONLY ISSUE, THE ONLY ISSUE AT HAND IS THE AWNING AND THOSE TRIMS. SO IF WE ARE APPROVED TO NOT REPLACE THE AWNING, THEN THERE'S NO OTHER LIKE PERMITTABLE ACTIONS, WE WOULD JUST BE REPLACING THE TRIM OR THERE'S NO STRUCTURE, THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT REPLACING ALL THE SIDING, IT'S ALL BRICK.
WE'RE JUST REPLACING THE TRIM AROUND THE WINDOWS.
I, THERE'S A, THERE'S, YEAH, ALTHOUGH THE PERMITTING IS VERY INTEGRAL FOR WHY THE HISTORIC OR ORDINANCE WORKS AND WHY CERTIFICATES ARE IMPORTANT, OF COURSE THEY'RE NOT EXACTLY CO-EXTENSIVE.
SO ANYTHING YOU'RE DOING THAT AFFECTS EXTERIOR FEATURES, ALTERATIONS OR THAT AREN'T ORDINARY MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR COULD REQUIRE A C OF A WITHOUT REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT.
SO I MEAN, AGAIN, MY STRONG RECOMMENDATION IS IF ANYTHING YOU'RE DOING ON THAT FACADE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME PLAN THAT SATISFIES THE HHC AT SOME POINT, OR GET STAFF'S ASSURANCE OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING DOES NOT REQUIRE A C OF A.
BUT I WOULDN'T JUST SORT OF, YOU KNOW, EYEBALL IT AND SAY, WELL, WE'RE MOVING SOME WINDOW TRIM AROUND THIS OR THAT, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE OKAY.
THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A C OF A, YOU HAVE TO GET A C OF A IT, IT WON'T ALWAYS BE THE SAME AS WHEN YOU NEED A PERMIT.
WELL, SO THAT'S, I GUESS PART OF MY QUESTION IS YOU'RE LIKE, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THROUGH THE COA PROCESS, WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT WE NEED TO REPLACE THE AWNING AND WE ARE APPEALING THAT.
AND SO OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S NOTHING LIKE WE CAN'T TOUCH THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT'S IN THIS LIMBO OF ADMINISTRATIVE, YOU KNOW, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS I GUESS AND, AND APPROVALS.
AND SO WE HAVE NOT, WE'VE NOT TOUCHED ANYTHING BEYOND REMOVING THE AWNING, WHICH WE FELT WE HAD PERMISSION TO DO.
AND, AND THEN AT THE POINT THAT WE, GOING INTO THAT MEETING, UH, THE LAST HHC MEETING, THE DEPARTMENT OF PRESERVATION HAD ON OUR COA, THAT THE, THE ACTION THAT WAS RECOMMENDED WAS APPROVAL.
AND SO WE WERE EXPECTING APPROVAL AT A, AT HHC AND THEN TO, TO REMOVE THE AWNING AND, AND LEAVE IT OFF.
WE HAD, WE SUBMITTED A, ON OUR, ON THAT COA ON OUR ORIGINAL COAA APPLICATION, WE SUBMITTED REPLACING THE AWNING WITH TRIM.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING, LIKE WE HAD OUR ELEVATIONS AND, AND ALL OF THAT INFORMATION ON, ON THAT COA AND ON THAT COA, THAT IS NOW I GUESS A, I GUESS IT'S AN A COA APPLICATION THAT IS NOW TURNED INTO A COR, NOT A COA.
UM, WE HAD SUBMITTED ALL OF THAT STUFF AND OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WAS REJECTED AND WE HAVE TO REPLACE THE AWNING, BUT WHICH IS WHY WE'RE APPEALING BECAUSE WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ALL THE STEPS, EVIDENCE, AND THEN REASON FOR NOT REPLACING THE AWNING.
UM, AND SO WE'RE JUST, OUR WHOLE GOAL TODAY, I BELIEVE WAS TO GET PERMISSION, UM, TO NOT REPLACE THE AWNINGS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH REPAIRING THE BUILDING, WHICH WOULD BE REPOINTING THE BRICK AND, AND THE, THE CRUMBLING BRICK AROUND WHERE THE AWNING WAS.
AND THEN, AND THEN REPLACING THAT.
I MEAN, WE CAN WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO DECIDE LIKE WHAT THE TRIM NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE, BUT OUR, OUR, I GUESS OUR GOAL IS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITH, WITH THE ACTUAL AWNING.
I UNDERSTAND YOU WANT, YOU KNOW, FINALITY AND RESOLUTION AND I'M, AND UH, YOU KNOW, THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE RIGHT NOW, EVEN IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING UHHUH, YOU'VE BEEN FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, WHICH CARRIES WITH IT SOME PENALTIES AND SOME HINDRANCES OF GETTING FURTHER PERMITS, RIGHT.
IF YOU DON'T NEED FURTHER PERMITS, THEN YOU'RE JUST AT RISK OF HAVING FINES ASSESSED OR
[01:00:01]
OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION BY THE CITY TAKE PLACE AT SOME POINT THROUGH HISTOR, THROUGH THE HH CITY, NO, THE CITY ATTORNEY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHICH, UH, IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT RARELY HAPPENS, BUT IT'S AN OPTION FOR THEM.IT, SO I'M JUST PUTTING OUT THERE, YOU'VE BEEN FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, SO THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'D WANT TO KIND OF CLEAN UP IN GENERAL.
IN NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS, BUT NOT COMPLYING WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL VIOLATION, IS ALL I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW.
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY ABOUT IT.
I, I, I I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.
I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHY WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING ELSE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE BUILDING OR ANYTHING AND WHAT WE WERE KIND OF HOPING TO, TO FIGURE OUT, SO, RIGHT.
I, I WANNA GET SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THIS.
MS. NI MICKELSON, UM, WHAT WAS JUST SAID,
IF PLANS ARE SUBMITTED THAT DON'T COMPLY WITH THAT, THAT'S A PROBLEM.
PLANS WON'T BE APPROVED AND YOU CAN'T GO BACK OUT THERE AND DO WORK THAT LOOKS DIFFERENT.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF THAT, I MEAN, YEAH, LONG TERM, IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANNA JUST LET THE BUILDING SIT THERE, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, UM, THEN YOU'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF A REMEDIATION, BUT THAT BY ITSELF IS NOT A VIOLATION.
UM, I DO WANT, UM, ROMAN AND I WERE TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PERMITTING PROCESS, AND I MAY HAVE MISSTATED, UM, THE SCOPE OF WHAT WORK CAN BE DONE OR HOW THEY RELEASE IF THEY RELEASE PARTS OF A PERMIT.
SO I'D LIKE STAFF TO ADDRESS THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT THAT, UH, TO THAT POINT, SO WE DON'T HAVE A A, THEY DON'T HAVE A PERMIT APPLICATION IN THE SYSTEM YET.
THEY GOT THE RED TAG AND THEY CAME TO US FIRST.
PEOPLE CAN APPLY AS YOU KNOW, FOR THE PERMIT SIMULTANEOUSLY, BUT THEY HADN'T GOTTEN THERE YET.
AND OUR HHC DECISION SAYS THAT WE, THE STAFF SHALL ISSUE THE C OF R FOR THE WORK COMPLETED.
AND THAT'S PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION HE WAS MENTIONING ON THE BACK OF A, OF A STRUCTURE, UH, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE AWNING BE REINSTALLED.
SO WHEN WE SEE THAT PERMIT APPLICATION, IF IT DOESN'T INCLUDE A DRAWING OF THE AWNING BEING INSTALLED, WE ARE NOT GONNA RELEASE THAT WHOLE TYPICALLY.
SO THEY KIND OF DO GO TOGETHER, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
WELL, IT'S YOU, WE DEAL WITH ILMS AND THE PERMITTING, YOU KNOW, CONSTANTLY, WE TRY AS WE REALLY, I MEAN OUR STAFF, WE, WE MOVE THINGS FORWARD IN THERE, YOU KNOW, IN THE ILMS SYSTEM.
WE DON'T WANNA HOLD PEOPLE UP.
IF THERE'S A WAY TO LET IT GO, WE'RE LETTING IT GO QUICK.
UM, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO A SITUATION LIKE THIS WITH A VERY SPECIFIC WORDING, ISSUANCE OF A CRR FOR THE WORK COMPLETED, WHICH THEY NEED TO GET PERMITTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT, THAT AWNING BEING REINSTALLED.
SO OUR ONLY GUARANTEE IS THAT THEN WHEN THE PERMITTING INSPECTORS COME OUT, THEY'RE SEEING THAT HAPPENING SIMULTANEOUSLY.
OTHERWISE, THEY WON'T FINALIZE FINAL, FINAL, THAT INSPECTION, BUT AGAIN, EVERYTHING'S ON THE TABLE.
COULD THIS BE SEPARATED OUT? COULD YOU, COULD THAT BE YOUR DECISION HERE, THAT SOMEHOW WE SEND BACK SOMETHING, UM, TO, SO THAT THEY MAY MOVE FORWARD? UM, OTHER THINGS, I, I'D LIKE TO RESOLVE IT AS, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH YOUR HELP TODAY IN A, IN SOME WAY TO MOVE FORWARD.
BUT WE'RE HERE TO SERVE HOWEVER IT WORKS.
I HAVE A COUPLE FINAL COMMENTS AND, UH, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION.
UM, AND ONE, I JUST WANNA REPEAT THAT, UM, I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT THE COMMISSION DIDN'T CONSIDER AND DISCUSS DEFERRAL SINCE THE, UH, THE HOMEOWNER AND APPLICANT COULD NOT ATTEND.
UH, THEY MAY HAVE HAD THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN SINCE, HAS SINCE BEEN PROVIDED.
UH, I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT THE, THE STRUCTURE IS NOT BEING PROTECTED FROM THE ELEMENTS.
SO TO THAT END, I AM PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION TO, TO SEND IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION WITH THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED AND SCHEDULED HOPEFULLY, SO THAT THE APPLICANT CAN ATTEND.
UM, IN THE MEANTIME, I'M GONNA ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AND HIS CONTRACTOR TO DO, IF THAT'S PUT PLYWOOD IN THERE, HOUSE WRAP SILICA OR CAULKED IN TO KEEP WATER OUT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A LONG-TERM SOLUTION CAN BE FIXED.
I HATE TO SEE CONTINUED DAMAGE THAT HAPPENED TO THAT.
SO DO YOU NEED ME TO RESTATE MY MOTION? YEAH, JUST ASSUME SINCE, UH, THE MOTION IS JUST TO SEND IT BACK TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION SINCE IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GONNA GO THERE ANYWAY.
[01:05:02]
UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION OR ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? UH, I THINK THAT'S ESSENTIALLY RIGHT.I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WANNA TRY TO WORK WITH STAFF FIRST ON SOME, UH, AWNING THAT THEY CAN WORK LIVE WITH, THAT'D BE FINE.
BUT IF NOT, I THINK ULTIMATELY THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO REAPPLY TO THE, UH, HHC.
ELLIOT, I HAD JUST HAD A QUICK AIRPLANE, HAD A QUICK COMMENT AROUND THAT.
IF WE ARE SENDING IT BACK, UM, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO WRITE SOME SORT OF A STATEMENT OR SOMETHING EXPLAINING OUR THOUGHTS AROUND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SPECIFICALLY TO MEET X, Y, Z SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE FEEL YOU DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO FULLY, UH, HEAR THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES AT HAND.
THAT'S, THAT'S CERTAINLY MY FEELING IS THAT, UH, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOW AUTHORIZED TO LIST THE NEW EVIDENCE, I THINK, AND THE, THEY'RE BETTER EQUIPPED TO KIND OF EVALUATE ALL THAT, AND THEY HAD A LOT OF THOUGHTS ABOUT THE AWNINGS, THE IMPORTANCE OF THEM, AND EVALUATE THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES INVOLVED, I THINK THEY'D BE BETTER, UH, EQUIPPED TO HEAR THIS EVIDENCE THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD TODAY.
AND I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE SIXTH WORD DESIGN CRITERIA, UM, IN, IN OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE TOPIC AND WHY WE ARE SENDING IT BACK.
WE WANNA BE RESPECTFUL OF BOTH OF THOSE MATTERS.
THEN I THINK, UH, ROMAN WANTS TO SPEAK.
I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT THE NEXT, UH, HHC MEETING IS AUGUST THE THIRD.
THERE'S NOT A JULY MEETING, BUT THAT'S AN EARLY AUGUST MEETING.
UH, AND THEN I DIDN'T CATCH IT, I APOLOGIZE TO COMMISSIONER HELLIER, BUT I WAS CHECKING WITH LEGAL, COULD THE MOTION INCLUDE, UH, SEPARATING THESE THINGS SO WE COULD ALLOW PAR A PARTIAL, UH, A APPROVAL OF H A'S DECISION TO, SO THAT THEY CAN GET AN APPLICATION IN ON THAT? JUST AN IDEA.
I FELT THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THE FACT THAT THE, UH, ALTERATION IS DONE TO THE WOOD FRAME HOUSE, MET WITH THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL.
IF THAT NEEDS TO BE ECHOED OR REPEATED IN THE, IN THE, IN MY MOTION, SO BE IT.
I JUST ASSUMED THAT THAT WAS WHY DON'T ADDRESSED, WHY DON'T YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION.
BUT THEY ARE GIVEN, YOU KNOW, ANY RELEASE ON ANY PERMITS THAT ARE MOVING FORWARD ON THE, UH, WOOD FRAME HOUSE.
AND MR. CHAIR, I'LL ADD, YOU MAY REMEMBER FROM YOUR TRAINING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED WHAT WE WOULD START DOING WITH THIS BOARD IS ISSUING ORDERS OF DECISION.
SO WE'RE PREPARED TO DRAFT ONE.
UM, MARETTE HAS HELPED REDRAFT THAT FORM AND, UM, SO I THINK THAT WILL ACHIEVE, UH, MEMBER, UH, VERA BLAND'S REQUEST THAT THE RATIONALE COME ALONG WITH THAT.
YEAH, WE'LL MAKE SURE THE BO THE COMMISSION GETS THAT.
UH, IS, DOES YOUR SECOND STAND I ELLIOT SECOND? YES.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS PRESENTED AND AMENDED.
AND MS. BLAND ALSO SAID FORTH, AND I ALSO SAY, AND I ALSO COMPLY
THEN WE GET TO NUMBER THREE, CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON JANUARY 26TH, 2023.
FIRST CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS 4 7 0 5 WEST MAIN STREET IN ONE MONTROSE COMMONS, HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS.
THIS IS, UH, 7 0 5 WEST MAIN ITEM THREE ON THIS AGENDA.
IN SUMMARY, WE HAVE A HOUSE IN THE, UH, FIRST MONTROSE COMMONS, HISTORIC DISTRICT, A CONTRIBUTING HOUSE.
THE APPLICANT REP REPLACED THE FRONT PORCH DECKING WITHOUT A PERMIT OR CFA AND UH, THEN THEY, THEY APPLIED FOR A C OF A AFTER THEY WERE RED TAGGED, IF YOU WILL.
AND THEN, UH, MAY 18TH, 2023, UH, WITHOUT THE APPLICANT IN ATTENDANCE.
THE HAC DENIED THE C OF A AND ISSUED A SEA OF A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION TO REMOVE THE INSTALLED DECK FLOOR AND REPLACED THE PORCH WITH
[01:10:01]
ONE BY FOUR TONGUE AND GROOVE PORCH FLOORING WOOD, THE TRADITIONAL, AS YOU KNOW, UH, PORCH FLOORING.UH, FOR, FOR THIS TYPE OF HOUSE, THE APPLICANT APPEALED THE DECISION.
AND SO THE REASONS FOR DENIAL, UM, OR THE REASON FOR THE RE THE C OF R TO REPLACE THE DECK WERE PERTAINING TO, UH, CRITERIA NUMBER 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, AND 10 OUTTA SECTION 33, 2 41.
UM, I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE, IF YOU WOULD, YOU CHAIR, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH THOSE? UH, IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS, I THINK FOR THE RECORD WE NEED TO HAVE IT COMMENT.
ALRIGHT, SO THE PRO, UH, THE CRITERIA NUMBER ONE IS THAT THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY MUST RETAIN AND PRESERVE THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THE REASON THAT THIS IS NOT IS IN VIOLATION OR NOT IN CONCORDANCE WITH THE CRITERIA, IS THAT REPLACING ORIGINAL PORCH FLOORING WITH TWO BY MATERIAL, HE REPLACED THE PORCH FLOORING WITH TWO BY SIX MATERIAL DOES NOT RETAIN AND PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE FRONT PORCH.
THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL WAS OR WOULD'VE BEEN A NOMINAL ONE BY FOUR, TONGUE AND GROOVE.
NUMBER FOUR, THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY MUST PRESERVE THE DISTINGUISHING QUALITIES OR CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING STRUCTURE, OBJECT OR SITE, AND ITS ENVIRONMENT.
REPLACING THE ORIGINAL PORCH FLOORING WITH TWO BY MATERIAL, IT'S THE SAME, UH, EXACT AS BEFORE, UH, DOES NOT RETAIN THE PRESERVE THE CHARACTER.
THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL WAS OR WOULD'VE BEEN A ONE BY FOUR.
NUMBER FIVE, THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY MUST MAINTAIN OR REPLICATE DISTINCTIVE STYLISTIC EXTERIOR FEATURES OR EXAMPLES OF SKILLED CRAFTSMANSHIP THAT CHARACTERIZE THE BUILDING STRUCTURE, OBJECT OR SITE.
UH, REPLACING IT WITH THE TWO BY MATERIAL DOES NOT MAINTAIN OR REPLICATE THE STYLISTIC FEATURE OF THE ORIGINAL PORCH FLOORING.
AND AS STATED BEFORE, WHICH IS A ONE BY FOUR TONGUE AND GROOVE NUMBER EIGHT, PROPOSED ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS MUST BE DONE IN A MANNER THAT IF REMOVED IN THE FUTURE WOULD LEAVE UNIMPAIRED THE ESSENTIAL FORM AND INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING STRUCTURE, OBJECT OR SIGHT.
AND THIS ONE IS A LITTLE, UH, UH, LITTLE NUANCE TO PICK UP ON, BUT THE PORCHES ARE AN IMPORTANT ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THE HOMES TO WHICH THEY'RE ATTACHED AND TO THE RHYTHM OF THE BLOCK.
FACE REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN A MANNER RESPECTFUL OF THE HOUSE'S CHARACTER.
ORIGINAL PORCH FLOORING OF THIS AREA WAS DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO SHED WATER.
THE, THERE'S ALWAYS A, AS YOU KNOW, A PITCH TO THESE FLOORS TOWARDS THE STREET, TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, AWAY FROM THE HOUSE.
AND THEN, UH, THIS MATERIAL, THE ONE IN THE ONE IN FOUR MATERIAL IS TYPICALLY NOT INSTALLED FLAT.
AND I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF HIS WAS INSTALLED FLAT OR NOT.
BUT WHAT'S ALSO DIFFERENT IS THAT BY PUTTING IN A TWO BY SIX MATERIAL, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GONNA HAVE GAPS BETWEEN THE BOARDS.
THEY DON'T OVERLAP ONE ANOTHER.
SO WATER CAN PERMEATE TO THE FRAMING STRUCTURE AND TO THE WHATEVER'S BENEATH THAT FLOOR DECK.
UH, NUMBER 10, UH, THE NUMBER NINE.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN FOR ANY EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR ADDITION MUST NOT DESTROY SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL ARCHEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL MATERIAL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO SIDING, WINDOWS, DOORS, AND PORCH ELEMENTS.
WORK WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT ALLOWING FOR INSPECTION.
IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT THE ORIGINAL PORCH FLOOR EXISTING EXISTED PRIOR TO THIS WORK, AND THAT MOST OF THAT FLOORING WAS IN FACT INTACT AS IT WAS UNDER A PORCH.
NUMBER 10, THE PROPOSED ALTERATION OR ADDITION MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MASSING SIZE, SCALE MATERIAL, AND CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CONTEXT AREA.
REPLACING THIS IS THE SAME ONE, REPLACING ORIGINAL PORCH FLOORING WITH TWO BY MATERIAL DOES NOT RETAIN AND PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN A NOMINAL ONE BY FOUR TONGUE AND GROOVE IN REALLY THAT'S INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR, UH, TO THE STREET IS THE OTHER PART OF THAT.
THE, UM, THE APPLICANT'S GROUNDS FOR APPEAL.
I HAVE DISTRIBUTED TO YOU A FULL, UH, SHEET, EIGHT AND A HALF BY 11 OF A NOTE ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSIONERS FROM THE OWNER WHO WILL JOIN, WHO'S JOINING US VIRTUALLY TODAY.
UH, BUT PART OF THAT THE MORE, THE MORE, UH, DIRECT POINTS OF APPEAL OUT OF THERE.
I HAVE 'EM LISTED AS THESE FIVE POINTS.
THE FRONT PORCH WAS VERY SMALL, IT HAD A HOLE IN IT, AND THE WOOD ALL SEEMED TO BE ROTTEN.
AND HE, THE, THE OWNER GOT RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FROM SOMEONE WHO WAS STAYING AT THE HOME.
UM, HE WAS WORRIED AND IMMEDIATELY HAD THE WOOD PULLED UP AND REPLACED.
AND HE USED TWO BY, UH, SIXES, I THINK YOU MIGHT SAY THERE, THAT ARE TREATED AND WILL LAST A LIFETIME, UH, PAINTED THE SAME COLOR AS BEFORE.
SO THE, THE FLOOR PORCH FLOOR WAS PAINTED TO MATCH WHAT IT WAS BEFORE, AND HE SAYS IT LOOKS IDENTICAL.
YOU HAVE IN YOUR, UH, DOCUMENTS THE UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT FROM THE HHC AND OUR STAFF REPORT, AND LET ME JUST CHECK IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE.
I FEEL THE NEED TO, UH, IN YOUR REPORT, YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS AS, UM, WE HAVE UP HERE ONLINE.
AND YOU CAN SEE IN THOSE PICTURES IF YOU ZOOM IN CLOSE ENOUGH THAT IT WAS A ONE BY FOUR.
YOU CAN SEE THAT ON PAGE SEVEN
[01:15:01]
OF 11 OF THE STAFF REPORT.THERE'S A COUPLE GOOD PHOTOS THERE TO GET A, YOU CAN SEE THE END, END GRAIN, THE END OF THAT WOOD.
UH, AND ALSO ON PAGE NINE OF 11, CAN WE GO TO NINE 11 PLEASE? UM, THIS GIVES YOU A SENSE OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S REALLY DIFFERENT HERE.
THERE'S THE, THERE ARE THE TWO BY MEMBERS, UH, MOUNTED AND, AND COMING TO THE FRONT AND ONE'S PAINTED.
THEY DO RECEDE AND IN APPEARANCE.
THERE, THERE, YOU KNOW, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.
YOU HAVE AN TYPICALLY AN OVERLAP OF THE ONE BY FOUR MATERIAL PAST THAT LAST FRAMING MEMBER WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU NORMALLY SEE THAT.
SO, UM, WE, UH, WHEN WE HAVE SOME COMMENTS IN YOUR PACKET FROM THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION OF FCH SSOS COMMENTS THERE.
UH, AND I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, THAT'S JUST A COMMENT I GUESS.
UM, BUT THE OTHER ONE ABOUT SHEDDING WATER, WHICH DEFINITELY A TONGUE AND GROOVE WILL TEND TO DO THAT.
DO WE KNOW IF THE APPLICANT DID ANY OTHER KIND OF, YOU CAN INSTALL A BARRIER OR MOISTURE BARRIER UNDERNEATH BEFORE THIS TWO BY SIX WENT IN PLACE THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING AS SHEDDING WATER? AND DO WE KNOW IF THAT WAS DONE? I DON'T THINK HE DID, BUT HE COULD ANSWER THAT ONE.
AND TO YOUR FIRST POINT, I KNEW THAT AS SOON AS, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, IN HIS LETTER HE MENTIONS PHONE CALLS AND SOME, UH, WHAT APPEARS TO BE CONFUSION IN THE OFFICE, THE, THE, THAT FIRST THOUGHT OF MINE WHEN I SAW IT WAS THAT I KNEW THAT COMMISSIONER YAP HAD DONE A COUPLE OF HOUSES.
NOW, THE HOUSES THAT I'VE SEEN THAT HE'S DONE THAT HAVE, THAT WERE NOT ACTUALLY IN HIS HISTORIC, THEY WERE HISTORIC HOMES.
AND THEY'RE IN HIGH FIRST WARD, BUT THEY WERE NOT IN HISTORIC DISTRICT, SO THEY DIDN'T COME BEFORE US.
HE HAS HAD OTHER PROPERTIES THAT CAME BEFORE, UH, WITH A C OF A, BUT FRANK, I THINK THEY ACTUALLY PROCEED MY TIME WITH THE, THE, THE CITY.
I DON'T REMEMBER REVIEWING A RESTORATION BY HIM IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE, UM, BUT IN OUR OFFICE TOO, THAT WAS A TRICKY QUESTION COMING INTO OUR OFFICE AND IF YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE MOVING ALONG, BUT WHEN WE, IN THE END, WE KNEW THAT HE HAD A RED TAG AND HE HAD TO GET IT IN COMPLIANCE.
WE ALSO HAD THE ISSUE THAT THE BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, UH, PHONE CALL TO MR. STOCK AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, ROMAN, IF THEY'RE DOING JUST THE DECK, JUST THE DECK ALONE, THEY'RE NOT REPLACING THE FRAMING.
WE, WE TYPICALLY WON'T REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT, BUT AS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, YOU CAN STILL RE YOU STILL HAVE THE REQUIREMENT OF A C OF A ON THAT KIND OF WORK.
AND SO THAT BACK AND FORTH ON THAT CONFUSION TO THE OWNER'S CREDIT, THAT, THAT THAT WAS VALID, THAT HE GOT AN ANSWER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
BUT HE STILL NEEDED THE C OF A ALL ALONG.
AND WE KNEW THAT IT WAS, WE NEVER SAID THAT YOU WEREN'T GONNA GUARANTEE GET THAT.
AND SO WHEN WE GOT TO COMMISSION IT DIDN'T GET THAT.
AND IT'S CLARIFICATION TO SOME OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WHO MAY NOT KNOW.
UM, A TWO BY SIX BOARD IS ACTUALLY AN INCH AND A HALF THICK.
UM, WHAT COMMISSIONER YAP REFERRED TO AS A ONE BY SIX, UH, TECHNICALLY IS NOT WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO.
IT'S CALLED A FIVE QUARTER BY SIX BECAUSE THIS GETS WEIRD.
UH, IT'S NOT FIVE QUARTERS OF AN INCH.
IT'S ACTUALLY A FULL ONE INCH THICK VERSUS A ONE BY SIX THAT IS THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH THICK.
LITTLE BIT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION THAT MAY BE TOO MUCH FOR
WELL, I COULD SEPARATE THE POINT IS THAT COMMISSIONER YAP SAYS WHAT HE INSTALLS ON HIS PORCHES ARE, LET'S SPEAK IN ACTUAL TERMS, A ONE INCH THICK BOARD.
UH, THAT IS FIVE AND A HALF INCHES WIDE AND ROUNDED ON THE EDGES.
UM, IT'S, AND THEN, UH, WHAT THIS INDIVIDUAL INSTALLED WAS A BOARD THAT'S ONE AND A HALF INCHES BY FIVE AND A HALF INCHES, UH, WIDE.
I WILL SAY THIS, THIS IS NOT, UH, AS YOU MIGHT ROLL YOUR EYES OH, REALLY? PORCHES, WELL, YOU KNOW, SAN ANTONIO, THAT'S THE, THAT HAS A GREAT PRESERVATION THAT THEY HAVE A, A DOCUMENT ALL ABOUT PORCHES AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT YOU RETAIN THAT CHARACTER OF 'EM.
UM, AND THEY'RE JUST, THEY'RE, THEY ARE PART OF IT.
AND THE SHEDDING IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO SHED THAT WATER OUT.
I JUST, UH, A KIND OF A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
I, I THINK THE ANSWER FROM WAY YOU DESCRIBED IT, I KNOW WHAT IT'S GONNA BE, BUT I JUST WANNA BE SURE THAT IF SOMEONE HAD COME, UH, AND SOUGHT TO REPLACE THE FLOORBOARDS, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE SAME STANDARD OF RECOMMENDATION OR IS THERE SOME YES.
UH, LEEWAY OR, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? YES, COMMISSIONER ALL, I HAVE IT WRITTEN ON THE WALL AS ONE OF OUR PERMANENT POSTINGS THERE, PORCH FLOORING, ONE BY FOUR, TONGUE AND GROOVE PERPENDICULAR TO THE STREET USUALLY.
AND SO THAT IS WHEN WE GET PHONE CALLS, I NEED TO DO MY PORCH.
WE WILL SAY, THAT'S HOW YOU HAVE TO DO IT.
UH, SO IF IT'S A MAINTENANCE THING, BUT THEN WE GET, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT THERE THAT MOST OF THE TIME, AND I LIVE IN A HOUSE, ONE OF THESE PORCHES, AND OF COURSE ALL, YOU KNOW, THESE PORCHES, THEY'RE TYPICALLY NOT ROTTED OUT TO
[01:20:01]
THE, THE END PIECES MIGHT GET A LITTLE ROT.SO YOU CAN LACE IN SOME ONE BY FOUR AND IT LOOKS ALL ORIGINAL.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO REMOVE ALL THAT ORIGINAL MATERIAL DEEPER IN THAT PORCH, WHICH 80% IS IN PLUS IS USUALLY IN GOOD SHAPE.
BUT ANYWAY, I MENTIONED A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS TOO.
UM, YOU CAN GET PRESSURE TREATED ONE BY FOUR TONGUE AND GROOVE PORCH FLOORING.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE JUST PINE.
UH, IT IS A LITTLE MORE EXPENSIVE.
THERE ARE ALSO ENGINEERED SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS WHICH MIMIC THE SAME LOOK DIMENSIONALLY, WHICH IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE.
AS LONG AS IT LOOKS THE SAME, IT'S PAINTABLE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
IT IS EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE THAN, THAN THE TREATED STUFF.
BUT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS OUT THERE.
AND, AND LASTLY, TO BE CON GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OR RETROACTIVE, I KNOW THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT COULD EASILY BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL STYLE AND MATERIALS.
THIS CERTAINLY WOULD BE EASILY, YOU KNOW, RESTORED IF SOMEBODY SO WISHED TO COME BACK IN AND DO THE ONE, YOU KNOW, A TREATED OR ONE BY FOUR TONGUE GROOVE.
AND WE DIS THE, IF YOU HAVE TIME TO READ THE MINUTES, THE HAC DID TALK ABOUT, UH, ALL OF THE PRODUCTS THAT WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE, KILN DRIED, DIFFERENT TYPES OF WOOD AND ALL THAT.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR DOES THE APPLICANT THAT'S VIRTUALLY, DOES HE HAVE A, I DON'T HAVE A FORM SAYING THAT HE WANTS TO SPEAK, BUT IS THERE A, DOES THE APPLICANT WANNA SPEAK? HI, MY NAME IS DAVE STEVEN.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN HEAR ME.
CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU, SIR.
UH, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, UH, UM, I, I DO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF RESPECT FOR THE HOUSTON PRESERVATION SOCIETY, AND I HAVE REMODELED TWO HOUSES.
THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO IT, I REMODELED AND I REMODELED IT WITH THE HELP OF ROMAN.
I REMODELED IT A FEW YEARS AGO, AND THAT ALL WENT FAIRLY WELL.
I THOUGHT, UH, ON THIS, UM, UH, I THOUGHT ROMAN, UH, SAID IT PRETTY WELL.
UH, I HAD THIS HOUSE I RENT, UM, UH, WE REMODELED IT AND WE, WE RENTED OUT IN, UM, UH, AIRBNB.
MOSTLY IT'S USED FOR PEOPLE, UH, THAT ARE STAYING IN THE MEDICAL DISTRICT.
PEOPLE WILL COME STAY FOR, UM, UM, TWO WEEKS TO THREE WEEKS BECAUSE THEY'RE HAVING SOMETHING DONE.
UM, UH, AND SO WE LIKE TO, UH, UH, UH, TRY TO KEEP THIS HOUSE AFFORDABLE AND IN A GOOD WORKING CONDITION.
WE HAD ONE OF OUR RENTERS COMPLAIN BECAUSE THERE WERE HOLES IN THE FRONT PORCH.
THERE WERE MULTIPLE HOLES IN THE FRONT PORCH.
UM, I WAS VERY WORRIED ABOUT IT.
I CALLED A, I CALLED A CONTRACTOR.
HE DID NOT CHANGE, CHANGE ANY OF THE FRAMING.
HE JUST CHANGED THE PORCH OUT.
AND HE PUT THE WOOD ON THERE THAT YOU SEE.
I TOLD HIM TO, I, YOU KNOW, THIS, I TOLD HIM IMMEDIATELY, MAKE SURE IT'S PAINTED TO LOOK THE SAME.
UM, THE, THE ONLY TIME REQUIREMENT, UH, I KNOW YOU PROBABLY ALL READ THE, THE LETTER FROM, FROM THE MONTROSE COMMONS.
MY ONLY REQUIREMENT WAS THAT IT LOOK, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH THE SAME AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE I DO KNOW THAT, UM, UH, THAT, THAT THE CITY WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
I, UM, THE WHY DID I USE THE PRODUCT THAT WE USED? ONE BECAUSE I FELT LIKE IT WOULD HOLD MORE WEIGHT.
UM, UH, I FELT LIKE IT WOULD LOOK THE SAME.
UM, UH, I FELT LIKE IT WOULD BE MORE STRUCTURALLY SUITABLE FOR A RENTAL PROPERTY.
UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I I, I, YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THOUGHT IT LOOKED FINE.
I TALKED TO THE CITY, I TALKED TO ROMAN, AND I TALKED TO ANOTHER LADY IN THE, IN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UH, OFFICE.
THEY BOTH SAID IT LOOKS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME LIKE FROM THE STREET.
IF YOU'RE WALKING ON THE STREETS, YOU CANNOT TELL A DIFFERENCE.
AND SO, UM, IT WOULD BE COSTLY FOR US TO GO CHANGE THAT BACK OUT.
AND, UM, THAT THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, AS AN AIRBNB TO THE, UM, DOES NOT MAKE MONEY.
WE, WE LOSE MONEY ON THIS PROPERTY.
UM, AND SO IT WOULD BE, UH, UM, VERY BURDENSOME FOR US TO GO, UM, CHANGE THIS BACK OUT.
SO I, I HUMBLY REQUEST THAT, YOU KNOW, WE LET THIS STAY.
UM, AND THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENTS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HEARING ME OUT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? MR. CHAIR? COULD YOU ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WHO'S HERE TO SPEAK? IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK FOR THIS ITEM?
[01:25:03]
I, I BELIEVE STEVEN LONGMEYER FROM THE MONTROSE COMMONS AREAS ONLINE AS WELL.SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF HE WISHES TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? UM, COMMISSIONER? YES.
THIS IS, UH, STEVE LONGMEYER, UH, ONLINE.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION OF THE FIRST MONTROSE COMMONS.
AND WITH ALL RESPECT TO MR. STEPHAN, UH, I GOT A LOT OF CALLS ABOUT THIS PORCH.
UM, TO THOSE OF US WHO'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SOME OF US MORE THAN 40 YEARS, AND, AND KNOW THIS HOUSE'S HISTORY, UM, IT'S A GLARINGLY NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE IN THE PORCH FROM WHAT IT WAS TO WHAT IT IS NOW.
UM, AND IT FRANKLY DIMINISHES THE APPEAL OF, OF THE HOUSE, UH, TO SEE BASICALLY TWO BY SIXES PLACE WHERE A TONGUE AND GROOVE ONE BY FOUR PORCH ONCE WAS.
WE HAVE A LOT OF HOUSES WITH ONE BY FOUR FRONT PORCHES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I WOULD SUBMIT THAT HAD HE CALLED THE HE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE FIRST, THEY WOULD'VE TOLD HIM TO REPLACE IT WITH THE ONE BY FOUR ITALIAN GROOVES.
EVERY MONTHLY NEWSLETTER I SEND OUT TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD HAS THE PHONE NUMBER CALL BEFORE YOU, BEFORE YOU START WORK.
UH, THE CALL IS FREE, UH, WITH THE NUMBER OF THE HISTORIC, UH, PRESERVATION OFFICE.
SO, UM, WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE THE RESTORATION OF THE PORCH, UM, TO THE, UH, INTENDED ORIGINAL DESIGN.
UH, I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, UH, FOR STAFF.
UM, WAS THERE, UH, I SEE YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO REPLACE THE IN ENTIRE PORCH, PRETTY MUCH.
WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO DOING SOMETHING LESS EXTENSIVE THAT WOULD, UH, STILL ACHIEVE, ACHIEVE VISUAL COMPATIBILITY FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY? OR WAS THAT CONSIDERED THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT? THE ONLY THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED WERE PUTTING IN SOMETHING THAT WAS, UH, SIMILAR TO WHAT THE ONE BY FOUR.
SO THOSE OTHER MATERIALS, THE, THE COMPOSITE, THE, ANY OTHER TYPE, BUT ALWAYS WAS THAT IT FELT IT SHOULD BE A ONE BY FOUR AND THE ENTIRE PORCH WOULD'VE TO GO AT ONE TIME, I GUESS.
YEAH, I'M SORRY, THE, THE, THE ENTIRE PORCH, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF, I MEAN, 'CAUSE I
UM, BUT I WONDER, YOU KNOW, THE MAIN THING YOU CAN SEE IS THAT FRONT EDGE.
IS THERE ANY SORT OF A CHEAP AND DIRTY WAY TO GET VISUAL COMPATIBILITY WITHOUT REPLACING THE WHOLE PORCH? OR IS THAT NOT, NO ONE DISCUSSED IT AND, BUT SINCE YOU'RE ASKING, MY THOUGHT WAS TO DO SOME, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, THREE QUARTER INCH TRIM BOARD ACROSS THE FRONT OF THAT TO GIVE THE ILLUSION THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THERE.
BUT I DIDN'T BRING IT UP AND, UM, AND I, AND I DON'T, AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS, UH, I GET IT.
IT'S, THAT'S THE, WHEN YOU REALLY LOOK AT IT, IT SAYS, UH, I UNDERSTOOD WHY THE CONVERSATION NEVER WENT ANY OTHER WAY, BUT WE DIDN'T, IF YOU WANT TO, OKAY, THAT'S OKAY.
I DON'T THINK, UH, THIS IS CHAIR BARTOW.
I DON'T THINK A PIECE OF TRIM ON THE FRONT WOULD TOTALLY ALLEVIATE THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE REVEAL ON THE FRONT DOOR, YOU COULD POSSIBLY PUT A WEATHER BARRIER AND THEN HAVE THE ONE BY FOUR PLACED ON TOP OF THE STRUCTURAL FLOOR INSTEAD OF HAVING TO RIP EVERYTHING OUT OF THAT.
AND YOU COULD PROBABLY ACHIEVE THE AESTHETIC.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE REVEAL'S GONNA BE BIG ENOUGH FOR A ONE BY FOUR TO BE ON TOP OF THAT FLOOR.
GUESS THAT'S REALLY JUST THE ESSENCE OF, I MEAN, I WOULD, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO EXPLORE WITH THE STAFF FOR HHC, AGAIN, PERHAPS A CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE THAT ACHIEVES THE GOAL OF THE ORDINANCE.
BUT, UM, OTHERWISE, I MEAN, I'M, I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT WHAT THE HHC DECIDED
JUST LOOKING AT THE PICTURE, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM.
UH, WHAT, UH, THE CHAIR IS SAYING IS REFERRING TO IS THE THRESHOLD ON THE DOOR, WHETHER THERE'D BE ENOUGH ROOM THERE TO PUT THREEQUARTER INCH MATERIAL ON TOP OF THAT, UH, THE EXISTING TWO BY SIX, YOU, YOU THEN HAVE TO DO SOMETHING
[01:30:01]
AT THE EDGE OF THE TWO BY SIX THAT COVER IT UP.BUT IF YOU EXTEND THE, THE ONE BY FOURS OUT PAST THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT, I THINK THAT WOULD ALMOST LOOK LIKE THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT.
AND THAT'S A CHEAPER OPTION THAN TEARING EVERYTHING OUT AND GOING BACK IN.
AND I THINK IT WOULD ALSO HELP TO STABILIZE THE ONE BY FOUR, WHICH WOULD BE TREATED OR NOT, IS JUST, IT'S, ITS NEW GROWTH LUMBER AND IT'S JUST NOT AS STABLE AS THE OLD STUFF WAS.
I THINK I COULD BE IN SUPPORT OF, UH, THAT METHOD, OTHERWISE I WOULD BE INCLINED TO UPHOLD HH C'S DECISION.
IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN A LONG TIME OWNER OF THIS HOME.
IT DOES FEEL, I DON'T WANNA SAY WILLFUL, I DON'T WANNA ASSIGN ANY KIND OF INTENTION BEHIND IT, BUT THIS IS SOMEONE WHO SEEMS TO KNOW WHAT THE REGULATIONS WERE AROUND THIS HOUSE.
UH, CAN I MAKE A MOTION? MM-HMM
UH, SORRY TO JOIN YOUR DISCUSSION ON THIS, BUT, UH, JUST TO POINT OUT THAT THE, THIS, THE, YOU WOULD BE THEN NEEDING TO REVISE THE HHC DECISION IF YOU DIDN'T CATCH THAT, BECAUSE THEIRS IS THAT THE C OF R IS TO REMOVE THE INSTALLED DECK FLOOR AND REPLACE IT.
SO YOU HAVE TO REVISE THEIR, YOU HAVE TO NEED, WOULD YOU NEED TO REVISE THEIR, THEIR DECISION A LITTLE BIT.
YOU SEE THAT THERE, I'VE GOT IT UP.
WELL THEN, THEN WHAT I WOULD DO IS MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, AMEND THE DECISION OF THE HHC TO ALLOW STAFF TO EXPLORE, UH, OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT, THAT MEET THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE IN REMEDIATING THE, UH, THE WORK.
IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH?
YOU KNOW, ARE WE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RISE OVER RUN, THE, THE HEIGHT OF THAT LAST STEP IF WE'RE ADDING EXTRA BOARDS ON TOP OF IT FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE AND FROM AN AESTHETIC PERSPECTIVE.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I WOULDN'T WANT TO SAY SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT'S APPROVED TO DO THAT BECAUSE I THINK STAFF OR HHGS TO EVALUATE IF THERE ARE ANY CHEAPER ALTERNATIVES.
I JUST DON'T LIKE HAVING SOMEONE, UH, FORCED TO DO IT ONE WAY WHEN THE ORDINANCE WOULDN'T TYPICALLY REQUIRE THE REPLACEMENT OF EVERYTHING.
IF YOU CAN ACHIEVE VISUAL COMPATIBILITY, UH, THAT'S THE MAIN GOAL.
AND I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT'S OBJECTION IS IT'S VISUALLY INCOMPATIBLE, NOT REALLY WHAT THE MATERIAL IS THERE OR HOW THICK IT IS NECESSARILY.
UM, BUT, UH, I, I'M JUST GONNA GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO APPROVE THE HHC AND, UM, UH, IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO SEEK ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE, THEY THINK, UH, MEETS THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO MAKE ANOTHER APPLICATION.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY ELLIOT SECOND BY BLAND.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
WE BLAND IN FAVOR, ELLIOT FOUR, BARTELL FOUR.
UH, NO ABSTENTIONS AND NO NEGATIVES.
SO, UH, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENT.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? UH, HEARING NONE.
I'M ADJOINING, UH, ADJOURNING THIS MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD.
AND I KNOW HHC IS MEETING THIS THURSDAY, SO WE COULD POTENTIALLY SUBMIT THOSE AS PART OF ROMAN'S REPORT AT THAT MEETING.