* 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. [ Historic Preservation Appeals Board on March 11, 2024] [00:00:11] I AM JD BARTEL, CHAIR OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER. THIS BOARD CONNECTS MEETINGS AT THE CITY HALL ANNEX WITH THE VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION OPTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 51 0.127 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2021. THE CHAIR WILL BE PRESENT IN THE ROOM. THAT IS I BOARD MEMBERS, STAFF, AND THE PUBLIC MAY ATTEND IN PERSON OR THROUGH A VIDEO CONFERENCE LINK USING MICROSOFT TEAMS. I WANNA GO OVER THE RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE APPEAL OF THE APPEAL HEARING. NUMBER ONE, WHEN SPEAKERS COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND AN ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS TO ME, NOT TO THE STAFF OR TO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS UNLESS DIRECTLY ASKED A QUESTION OR TO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ROOM OR TO OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ROOM. ALL COMMUNICATION SHOULD NOT COME THROUGH. THE CHAIR SHOULD COME THROUGH THE CHAIR. I ALSO ASK THAT YOU REFRAIN FROM ANY DISPARAGING REMARKS, AND PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS RELEVANT TO THE MATTER AT HAND. IF SOMEONE ELSE HAS ALREADY MADE THE POINTS YOU INTENDED TO MAKE, YOU MAY SIMPLY STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND STATE YOUR POSITION, IE WHETHER YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE APPLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE TO YOUR AREA, THREE, NO AUDIBLE DISPLAYS OR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION WILL BE ALLOWED. THIS MEANS NO APPLAUDING, NO BOOING, AND NO CALLING OUT. I'M ASKING THAT YOU RESPECT EACH OTHER NO MATTER WHAT SIDE OF THE ISSUE YOU MAY BE ON. NUMBER FOUR, PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES AT THIS 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, FIVE SPEAKERS WILL BE TAKEN IN THIS ORDER. HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE STAFF WILL OPEN WITH A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE APPEAL BEFORE THE BOARD, THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE NEXT AND WILL BE GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION. STARTING WITH 15 MINUTES, YOU WILL BE GIVEN ADDITIONAL TIME AS WARRANTED. I WILL CALL UP ANY SPEAKERS BOTH IN THE ROOM AND OR ONLINE, WHICH WISH TO MAKE COMMENTS. COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES WITH AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE AS TIME AS WARRANTED. WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKERS, WHICH WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THE TIME ALLOTTED FOR SPEAKING. BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD LIKEWISE ADDRESS THEIR QUESTIONS THROUGH THE CHAIR. AN INTERPRETER MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR SPANISH SPEAKING PARTICIPANTS, AND ADDITIONAL TIME WILL BE GIVEN FOR TRANSLATION. THIS MEETING MEETS CURRENT OPEN MEETING LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. SO AS LONG AS THE QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS ARE AUDIBLE AND VISIBLE WITH A CAMERA ON AND A MIC READY TO BE TURNED ON. IF VIRTUAL ROLL BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND RESPOND BY REPEATING YOUR NAME AND SAYING, PRESENT OR PRESENT VIRTUALLY WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME. I AM THE CHAIR, JD BARTEL, AND I AM PRESENT. DOUGLAS ELLIOT. ELLIOT. PRESENT, TRUMAN EDM ADMINSTER MUNSTER. PRESENT, ROB HELLER. HELLER PRESENT. LIBBY VIRA BLAND. VIRA BLAND. PRESENT ACTING DIRECTOR OR REPRESENTATIVE? JENNIFER OLAN. NICOLE BRUCE. I HERE FOR JENNIFER OSLAN. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM. THERE IS NO CHAIR REPORT. MAY I CALL FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT? GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS. I AM NICOLE BROUSSARD, ACTING SECRETARY OF THIS BOARD AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD IS BEING CONDUCTED IN PERSON AT 900 BAGBY STREET IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE PUBLIC LEVEL OF THE CITY HALL ANNEX WITH A VIRTUAL TEAMS PARTICIPATION OPTION. YOU CAN SEE THE ONLINE AGENDA FOR DETAILS. OUR LAST MEETING WAS ON NOVEMBER 28TH, 2023. SINCE THEN, FORMER DIRECTOR MARGARET WALLACE BROWN HAS RETIRED ON FEBRUARY 9TH OF THIS YEAR, AND WE WISH HER ALL THE BEST ON HER HARD EARNED RETIREMENT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL THE HOUSTON OFFICE OF PRESERVATION HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6 OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM. THIS CONCLUDES MY DIRECTOR'S REPORT. THANK YOU. THE PRIOR MEETING MINUTES WERE POSTED WITH THE AGENDA. MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ACCEPT THESE MINUTES? UH, COMMISSIONER [00:05:01] VEER BLAND. I I MOTION TO ACCEPT THESE MINUTES. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER M, ADMINISTER SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? STATE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME. ELLIOT. AYE. HELL, YOUR AYE. M ADMINISTER. AYE. VIRA BLAND. AYE. AND I'M THE CHAIR. I ALSO, SO WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. OKAY. UM, I'M GONNA CALL THE TWO ITEMS OUT OF ORDER SINCE WE HAVE SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE FOR THE SECOND I ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA. SO THE ITEM NUMBER THREE IS CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON JANUARY 18TH, 2024. FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE ADDRESS. 6 7 1 5 HOLLY GROVE DRIVE IN GLENBROOK VALLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE HPAB. THIS IS STAFF PERSON TERRENCE JACKSON. AND TODAY I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM NUMBER THREE AT 6 7 1 5 HOLLY HOLLY GROVE STREET, LOCATED IN THE GRIN BOOK VALLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE HOUSE IS A NON-CONTRIBUTING 3,167 SQUARE FOOT. TWO STORY, TWO TWO RANCH STYLE RESIDENCE BUILT IN CIRCA 1965. THE AC APPLICANT HAS REPLACED FIVE PANELS OF LEAD FRAME DIAMOND PATTERN WINDOWS AT THE FRONT ELEVATION WITH SIDING AND TWO SINGLE HUNG ENERGY EFFICIENT VINYL OPERABLE WINDOWS. THE APPLICANT ALSO INSTALLED TWO NEW VINYL WINDOWS WITH A SIX OVER SIX DIVIDED LIGHT PATTERN AT THE SIDE ELEVATION. AGAIN, ALL WORK WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH STAFF TO SEEK A WINDOW REPAIR OPTION. THEY ONLY RECEIVED A QUOTE FROM FREEBERG GLASS TO REBUILD AND REPLACE THE LEAD FRAME DIAMOND PATTERN WINDOWS FREEBERG GLASS, HOWEVER, WAS ONLY ABLE TO REBUILD AND REPLACE THE LEAD FRAME AND LEAD FRAME AND THE GLASS. THUS, THE OWNER WOULD NEED TO SEE QUOTES TO HAVE THE CON HAVE A CONTRACTOR BUILD THE WOOD FRAMING TO HOUSE THE LEAD FRAMES TO BE PROVIDED BY FREEBIRD. GLASS STAFF RECOMMENDED AT THE TIME THAT THE WINDOWS THAT THE SIDE VIS ELEVATION REMAIN AND THE BRICK MOLDING AND BRICK VENEER AROUND THE WINDOWS BE PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED TO MATCH THE CHARACTER OF THE TUDOR RANCH STYLE. HOME STAFF ALSO ASKED THE OWNER TO FILL IN A PREVIOUSLY CUT OPENING AT THE SIDE ELEVATION WITH BRICK TO MATCH AT THE HAHC MEETING IN JANUARY. STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF A COA AND ISSUANCE OF A COR. THE HH C'S RULING WAS DENIAL OF ISSUANCE OF A COA AND ISSUANCE OF A COR. UNDER THE CONDITIONS, THE OWNER CAN REPLACE WINDOWS IN FRONT WITH FIVE VERTICALLY FIXED OR CASEMENT WINDOWS WITH MILL FINISH. THE OWNER WORK WITH STAFF TO DETERMINE THE BEST SOLUTION FOR BRICK MOLDING VENEER AT THE TWO NEW WINDOWS AT THE SIDE ELEVATION. THE OWNER FILLING THE SMALL OPENING ON THE SIDE OF THE HOME WITH BRICK TO MATCH OR WORK WITH STAFF TO FIND A SUITABLE SOLUTION. AS OF THIS TIME, THE OWNER HAS RECEIVED RED TAGS ON OCTOBER 17TH, DECEMBER 18TH, JANUARY 22ND, AND FEBRUARY 21ST. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE H-A-H-P-A-B, THE OWNER, BALA EMIN, IS HERE AND AVAILABLE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M ALSO AVAILABLE FOR QUESTION. AND YOU SAID THIS IS A NON-CONTRIBUTING HOUSE. IS IT BECAUSE IT'S A NEWER CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATIONS? UH, NO, SIR. UM, WE BELIEVE THAT AT THIS TIME WHEN GLENBROOK VALLEY WAS SURVEYED, UH, WHEN IT BECAME A HISTORIC DISTRICT, THIS ONE WAS MARKED AS NON-CONTRIBUTING BY MISTAKE. AND IT, WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN OUT TO RESURVEY SINCE THEN TO CATCH THOSE MISTAKES ON THE OTHER HOMES IN GLENBROOK VALLEY AS WELL. OKAY. OH, UM, I HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION ABOUT THAT. YES, SIR. I MEAN, BUT AT THE MOMENT IT'S A NON-CONTRIBUTING YES, SIR. OKAY. AND IT LOOKS LIKE THOUGH THE CRITERIA THAT WERE APPLIED WERE THE STANDARD C OF A CRITERIA, NOT THE NON-CONTRIBUTING CRITERIA. I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT IS. COULD YOU, COULD YOU REPEAT THE SECOND PART OF THAT? YEAH. UM, THE, UM, SECTION 33, 2 41 9, WHICH HAS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, THE LAUNDRY LIST OF WHETHER OR NOT A C OF A SHOULD BE ISSUED. UM, I, I BELIEVE THOSE ARE THE CRITERIA FOR A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. THE NON-CONTRIBUTING CRITERIA ARE JUST [00:10:01] TWO LITTLE THINGS, RIGHT. SO, UH, WITH THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, WE STILL NEED TO TREAT THE HOME AS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. UM, AS FAR AS THE WINDOW, I'M SORRY. NO, THE, THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING THIS DISTRICT LIST, THIS AS A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT IT'S TREATED AS. OH, OKAY. HOLD ON. CAN YOU HOLD ON. I'M SORRY. MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION. I'M NO, THAT'S, THAT'S THE QUESTION. ARE YOU ASKING ME ABOUT THE CRITERIA BEING, UH, CONTRIBUTING? NO, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, WITH THIS HOUSE AND THE OTHER ONE, PEOPLE FELT REALLY, IT, IT TYPIFIED THE DISTRICT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONTRIBUTING AND EITHER BECAUSE OF THE DATE OR IN THIS CASE AN ERROR, IT'S NOT, BUT AS A LEGAL MATTER CORRECT. THE HOMEOWNER AND, AND THE CITY, IT'S CLASSIFIED AS NON-CONTRIBUTING AND CORRECT. I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE JUDGED BY THAT CRITERIA. GOTCHA. THE ORDINANCE, WHICH DOESN'T APPEAR IT WAS DONE IN THIS CASE, IS WHAT I WAS SAYING. POINT UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER, THAT'S TRUE. THAT DOES A, A REPORT IS WRITTEN UP AS A CONTRIBUTING AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AS A NON-CONTRIBUTING, UH, IN WHICH CASE IT WOULD BE THE TWO. UH, AND SO, UH, THAT'S SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER, ALTHOUGH I THINK THOSE TWO IN THIS CASE, UM, THE, WE WOULD WE'LL NEED TO GO BACK AND ADDRESS IT, BUT THE, THE TWO CRITERIA FOR A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING THAT WE WOULD USE TO CONSIDER THIS WORK MAY RESULT IN THE SAME WAY. BUT, BUT EITHER WAY WE HAVE IT WRITTEN UP HERE, NOT, YEAH. RIGHT. MR. MCALLEN'S CORRECT IN THIS QUESTION, NOT SO DIRECTLY ASKED AT H-H-A-H-C, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE STATUTE THAT, YOU KNOW, CFAS ARE NOT REQUIRED IF SOMETHING'S DAMAGED. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SO LONG AS IT'S THE, IT HAS THE SAME EXTERIOR FEATURES, FOR EXAMPLE. AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE, UM, HAHC WAS DIRECTING THEIR ATTENTION. DO YOU, UM, THE QUESTION FOR STAFF, DO YOU HAVE THE CRI THE TWO CRITERIA FOR A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING THAT YOU COULD POST SO THAT IT CAN BE IN THE RECORD SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THOSE TWO CRITERIA ARE? YES, THEY'RE ON THE SCREEN NOW. LET ME, UH, AND WITH LEGAL HERE, LET'S CONSIDER THIS. SO THIS CRITERIA, UM, IS GONNA BE FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING AND IT, IT HAPPENS TO BE UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL SECTION, BUT IT IS THE CRITERIA THAT WE, UM, MIGHT USE. NOW, WE HAVE AN UNUSUAL SITUATION HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE WORK WITHOUT A C OF A, AND I BELIEVE WITHOUT A PERMIT, WHICH THEN MEANS WHEN WE GO TO HHC, WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION. AND, UH, SO WE'VE GOTTA TAKE IT TO, WE, WE WE HAVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OPTION. WHEN WE DO, IN THIS CASE, WE DON'T. AND I BELIEVE ACTUALLY THERE MIGHT BE LANGUAGE THAT AT THE END OF THIS SECTION THAT STATES THAT IT COMES BACK TO COMMISSION. UH, AND IT THEN AS, AS, AS LEGAL HAS POINTED OUT TO US, SINCE WE HAVE A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING, WE OFTEN TURN TO THIS LANGUAGE IN THE CODE BECAUSE IT IS, IT IS THE MOST APPLICABLE LANGUAGE TO THE SITUATION THAT BEING A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING. UH, AND, AND, AND UNDER 67% OF THE STRUCTURAL MATERIAL BEING USED. I UNDERSTAND. AND I THINK BASED ON WHAT THE HHC DID WITH THE OTHER CASE, WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE, BUT YOU'RE IMPLYING THAT BECAUSE THE NON-CONTRIBUTING REQUIREMENTS SAY YOU DON'T, DOESN'T CREATE AN EARLIER OR LATER APPEARANCE AND, UM, REPLICATES, UH, FEATURES WITH WHAT WAS THERE AND ALL THAT, THAT THEY MAY HAVE COME OUT THE SAME WAY. AND I GUESS I'VE ISSUE WITH THAT BECAUSE IT REALLY IS A DI A DIFFERENT STANDARD. I MEAN, UH, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, APPLYING THE RIGHT STANDARD AT THE HHC IS IMPORTANT AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE REASON ENOUGH TO, UM, TO UH, UH, UH, REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE HHC. BUT I MEAN, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IS THE PROPER WAY TO JUDGE THIS AS A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING. UM, WHICH I THINK IS, IT SHOULD NOT BE IDENTICAL TO THE CONTRIBUTING BUILDING. IT'S, IT'S A LOOSER STANDARD. I MEAN, PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO DEMOLISH NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING WITHOUT ANY PERMIT. UM, IT'S JUST, IT'S A LOOSER STANDARD. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S DIFFICULT IN THIS CASE 'CAUSE IT ALREADY RESEMBLES SO MUCH THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE, YOU KNOW, AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE TWO THAT WE'VE GOT UP HERE, THE ACT, IT REQUIRES ONE A AND B, AND A IS OKAY, IT'S RE IT'S NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE BUILDING, BUT B IS, IT IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT HAS TO MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF EITHER THAT BUILDING OR CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN THE CONTEXT AREA. AND SO, UM, IN APPLYING THAT WE WOULD'VE RECOMMENDED, [00:15:01] SIMILAR TO WHAT WE RECOM, IF NOT THE SAME THING THAT WE RECOMMENDED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE TO HHC. OKAY. I, I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK I, I MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF INTERPRETATION OF WHAT MATCH MEANS IN THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE VERSUS THE, THE, THE VERY MORE EXHAUSTIVE LIST IN, UM, EVALUATING, CONTRIBUTING BUILDING. BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? UM, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE APPLICANT, UM, AND PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME, UH, INTO THE MIC BEFORE SPEAKING. THANK YOU. OH, OH, OKAY. BALA EL MEAN, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO SAY FOR THE PROJECT OR? UM, UM, WELL, I KNEW THEY, THAT THIS IS KIND OF THE, UH, PERMITTING AND, UM, HISTORIC DISTRICT'S AREA OF EXPERTISE. SO, SO WHEN THEY FIRST PUT THE, UH, NOTICES ON MY DOOR, THEY KNEW THAT MY HOUSE WAS NON-CONTRIBUTING AT THAT TIME, BUT ALL, EVERYTHING THAT THEY TOLD ME TO DO WAS CONTRIBUTING, CONTRIBUTING, CONTRIBUTING. SO I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT IT WASN'T CONTRIBUTING TILL I GOT HERE AT THE HEARING IN JANUARY. SO, I DON'T KNOW. IT SEEMS A BIT PREDATORY TO ME. LIKE YOU INITIALLY, WHAT WE COULDN'T GET YOU ON THIS. SO WHAT ABOUT THIS THEN? SO WHAT ABOUT THIS? SO THEY JUST, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY KEEP COMING AT, OH, WE CAN'T, WE, WE COULDN'T GET THIS TO STICK. SO WHAT ABOUT THIS ONE? SO IT SEEMS A BIT PREDATORY TO ME. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S, IT SEEMS LIKE EXTRA. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? UH, I'LL JUST ADD, AND STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M MISSTATING THIS, BUT IT WAS RED TAGGED BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A PERMIT NOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, EXCUSE ME. SO NOT THE, THE INITIAL RED TAG HAD NOTHING TO DO, I BELIEVE, WITH THE STATUS AS CONTRIBUTING OR NON-CONTRIBUTING. BUT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO, UM, NO PERMIT. BUT I KNOW WHEN I, WHEN I WAS TOLD TO COME DOWN AND, UH, I WAS TOLD TO COME DOWN AND APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO PUT THAT SIGN IN THE YARD. UM, AND AS FAR AS, UM, I GUESS, I GUESS THE PERMITTING PART WOULD'VE COME AFTER THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PART OR I'M NOT SURE THE, THE, HOW THE ORDER OF THINGS GO, BUT, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE WHAT DO I NEED TO DO NOW? IS IT THE PER, IS IT THE PER GO FOR THE PERMIT ONLY OR GO FOR THE PERMIT AND THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE? LIKE WHAT, WHAT DO I NEED TO DO NOW? I I, I THINK THE, THE PROPER PROCESS, EVEN IF IT'S A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING, IF YOU'RE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND YOU'RE DOING ALTERATIONS, UH, OR, UM, ADDITIONS, YOU NEED TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AND THAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN BEFORE THE PERMIT. SO, BUT YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE CAN START DOING WORK, JUST GO OUT THERE WITH A HAMMER OR A CONTRACT. YOU CAN START DOING WORK AND YOU'RE GONNA GET REG TAGGED FOR NOT HAVING THE PERMIT MM-HMM . AND THEY'RE GONNA REALIZE YOU NEED THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. WHETHER OR NOT THAT GETS ISSUED DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT IT'S CONTRIBUTING BUILDING OR NON-CONTRIBUTING. AND THE, THAT WHOLE STAFF AND HEHC PROCESS, UM, ONCE MATERIAL HAS BEEN IRREVOCABLY LOST, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THESE KIND OF DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE, THEN YOU HAVE TO GET WHAT'S CALLED A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION, WHICH MEANS, OKAY, WHAT'S BEEN DONE IS, IS BAD. WE DON'T REALLY APPROVE, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE, BUT THIS IS THE NEXT BEST THING. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE YOU ARE NOW. SO RIGHT NOW IT'S BEEN DETERMINED THAT YOU WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET A PERMIT UNTIL THAT GETS, UH, RESOLVED EITHER THROUGH A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UH, OR A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION. SO, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY DENIED YOUR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND GAVE YOU INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOW TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION. AND YOU, UH, ARE APPEALING THAT YOU'RE, AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE APPEALING BOTH OF THOSE THAT YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU, YOU STILL WANT US TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS IN FACT APPROPRIATE OR YOU JUST CAN'T COMPLY OR DON'T WANT TO COMPLY WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF MEDIATION AND WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER CRACK AT IT. I, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, UH, I MEAN, AS FAR AS THE, AS FAR AS IT BEING A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, [00:20:01] DOES THAT MATTER AT ALL? IT, IT MATTERS BECAUSE, UM, THE CRITERIA ABOUT HOW, UH, RIGOROUS NEED TO BE WITH PRESERVING THE LOOK AND EVERYTHING IS HIGHER. UH, IF IT'S CONTRIBUTING BUILDING IN THIS CASE, THEY KIND OF TREAT IT AS THE SAME. 'CAUSE, UH, IT'S MOST CON NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS ARE REALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOUR NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING IS EXACTLY LIKE THE KIND OF THING THEY'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE. IT'S JUST TOO NEW TO HAVE QUALIFIED AS CONTRIBUTING, I THINK WAS THE ISSUE, OR IT WAS OMITTED BY MISTAKE. BUT, UM, THE STANDARDS SHOULD BE DIFFERENT. UH, THEY, THEY STILL EXIST. YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO DO SOMETHING TO A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING THAT DISTURBS THE HARMONY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I FEEL LIKE THEY WERE A LITTLE TOO STRICT IN THIS CASE. BUT YOU STILL NEED TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF, UH, REMEDIATION OR APPROPRIATENESS EVEN FOR A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING BECAUSE IT'S IN THE DISTRICT. BUT THE RULES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE AS STRICT. AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT WE'RE HERE TODAY ABOUT . OKAY. WE SEEM TO HAVE MORE INSTANCES OF UN PERMITTED WINDOW REPLACEMENT IN GLENBROOK VALLEY THAN ALL THE OTHER DISTRICTS COMBINED. AND I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE SOLUTION TO THAT. 'CAUSE YOU WOULD THINK EVERYONE BY NOW AND THE WINDOW REPLACEMENT CONTRACTORS AND EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU HAVE TO PULL A PERMIT. IT'S IN HISTORIC DISTRICT. YOU CAN'T PULL A PERMIT UNLESS YOU HAVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. BUT THAT SAID, THE FACT THAT THE CASE WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION BASED ON CRITERIA FOR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT IT ISN'T A CONTRIBUTING OR IT ISN'T CLASSIFIED, MAYBE IT SHOULD BE. UM, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IT IS NON-CONTRIBUTING. UNTIL THAT IS CHANGED THROUGH THE CHANNELS, THE GUIDELINES FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING SHOULD APPLY, HAVE TO APPLY. UM, SO I DUNNO IF IT'S, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU JUST WANT A SOLUTION TO THIS, YOU DON'T WANNA KICK IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A NEW DECISION 'CAUSE THEY'RE PROBABLY STILL GOING TO DENY IT BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE. UM, SO, AND I SEE IT'S A RECOMMENDATION IN HERE THAT A VERTICAL CASEMENT, AS LONG AS THIS MILL FINISH IS A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? YE YES. THAT WAS, UH, SUGGESTED BY ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HHC AS A SOLUTION TO, UH, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST PAGE ON THE REPORT, I BELIEVE IT IS, SHE RECEIVED QUOTES, UM, FROM FREEBURG GLASS TO HAVE THE WINDOWS REBUILT. SO, UM, AS AN ALTERNATIVE, ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HAHC, UH, RECOMMENDED A CASEMENT MILL FINISH, UH, SOLUTION. AND THAT'S WITHOUT THE PAT, THE LIGHT PATTERN OF THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS? NO, THEY WANTED, THEY WANTED IT TO STILL BE THE SAME LIGHT PATTERN . SHE WAS STILL GOING TO HAVE TO GET THE, UH, GET IT KIND OF THE BAY WINDOWS REFRAMED BY A CONTRACTOR AND THEN HAVE THOSE INSTALLED. UH, THAT IT GENERALLY GOES BACK TO MY, UH, PROBLEM WITH HOW THE CERTIFIC REMEDIATIONS ARE ISSUED BY THE HHC. I DON'T THINK THIS APPLICANT REQUESTED THAT. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY SHE WANTED, BUT I DON'T THINK SHE REQUESTED THAT THAT WAS SORT OF, THEY, THAT PLAN WAS GENERATED BY THE HHC ON ITS OWN AND IMPOSED ON THE APPLICANT. AND I MEAN, THAT'S JUST NOT THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO. SO IF, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SOLUTION AND, AND HOPE THAT GETS APPROVAL, YOU DON'T, UM, I MEAN, AND IT MAY OR MAY NOT GET APPROVED, BUT THEY CAN'T, YOU KNOW, COMMAND YOU TO, TO DO IT THEIR WAY. , YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A WAY THAT YOU THINK ALSO SATISFIES THE CRITERIA. I, I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM. SO, UM, I JUST, JUST FOR A POINT OF CLARITY, UM, THE APPLICANT DID STATE, THIS IS STAFF MEMBER JACKSON, BY THE WAY. UM, THE, UH, APPLICANT DID STATE TO THE HHC BECAUSE THAT VERY QUESTION DID COME UP AND SHE DID STATE THAT SHE WOULD PREFER TO LEAVE THE WINDOWS AS THEY ARE. I GUESS WHAT REALLY TROUBLES ME ABOUT THIS IS THE DECISION BY THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION. I, ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION HEARD FORMER MAYOR TURNER TELLING CITY COUNCIL THAT TO OVERTURN A DECISION BY ANY OF THE COMMISSIONS, THEY MUST DETERMINE THAT THAT DECISION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. AND I THINK THIS ONE WAS, YEAH, WHEN I'M READING THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE DISCUSSION THEY HAD AROUND THIS ITEM, THEY CERTAINLY DISCUSS THAT IT'S A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE [00:25:01] DIFFERING CRITERIA THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS MORNING WERE NOT BROUGHT INTO THAT CONVERSATION. UM, I'M NOT SURE, I'M NOT SURE AT WHAT LEVEL THEY WERE CONSIDERING IT CONTRIBUTING, EVEN THOUGH THEY IDENTIFIED IT AS NON-CONTRIBUTING. BUT THAT IS VERY CONCERNING TO ME. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN REDESIGN THAT HOUSE, REDESIGN THAT FACADE WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT IN OUR PURVIEW TO BEGIN WITH, BUT THAT'S CONCERNING. AND WE CAN'T PROPOSE YET ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE. YEAH. TO, 'CAUSE THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE WINDOWS. IF IT WAS A ONE LIGHT ALUMINUM CASEMENT WINDOW, I KNOW FOR A FACT IT'D BE A LOT CHEAPER THAN HAVING FREEBIRD GLASS WHO I KNEW VERY WELL, AND THEY DO GREAT WORK, BUILD THE THE, AND THEN HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE BUILD AN ALUMINUM FRAME FOR IT. IT'S JUST, IT'S COST PROHIBITIVE. WELL, JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, UH, STAFF MEMBER TERRANCE JACKSON, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THEY WANTED THE FRAME TO BE BUILT OUT OF WOOD, AND THEN THE CASEMENT ALUMINUM WINDOWS BE, THEY WANTED THE BAY WINDOW LOOK TO BE BUILT OUT OF WOOD REBUILT AND THEN INSET THE CA WOOD CASEMENT WINDOWS INSIDE THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT 'EM TO FRAME IT OUT OF ALUMINUM ALTOGETHER. YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET MILL FINISHED WITH A WOOD. YEAH. HOW DOES THE MILL FINISH, HOW DOES THE MILL FINISH COME INTO PLAY WITH A WOOD WINDOW? THE NO, NO, NO. THEY WANTED TO BUILD, SO IN ORDER FOR YOU TO SEAT THE WINDOW INSIDE, RIGHT, BECAUSE NOW IT HAD A BAY WINDOW EFFECT AT FIRST. RIGHT. SO THEY WANTED THAT BAY WINDOW EFFECT TO BE BUILT OUT OF WOOD AND FRAMED OUT OF WOOD. AND THEN THE CASE, THE, THE WOOD THEN THE, I'M SORRY, THE ALUMINUM WINDOWS BE SET INSIDE THE WOOD FRAME TO, IT WAS, IT WAS, IT WAS, UH, IT WAS AN INTERESTING SUGGESTION. WELL, MY, I MY QUESTION WOULD BE HOW CLOSE WOULD WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING BE TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY THERE? IT STILL WOULDN'T BE VERY CLOSE TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY THERE. WELL, UH, SO THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN SAY IS THAT THEY REALIZED THAT THE, UM, FREEBERG GLASS WAS GOING TO HAVE TO REPLACE FIVE, UH, LEAD FRAME DIAMOND PATTERN PANELS. SO THEIR SOLUTION WAS FIVE CASEMENT MILL FINISH, UH, ALUMINUM WINDOWS. I I MEAN, I, I DON'T THINK I, FOR ME, I DON'T NEED TO DEBATE THE MERITS OF IT BECAUSE IT'S EXCESSIVE. YOU DON'T NEED TO, YOU CAN'T COMMAND PEOPLE TO HAVE THINGS FABRICATED TO REPLACE HISTORIC ELEMENTS. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. IT'S, IT'S WASTEFUL AND IT JUST, I DON'T THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S BEYOND THE, THE POWER OF THE HHCI MEAN, I'M ALL PREPARED TO, YOU KNOW, UH, REVERSE THE HH C'S DECISION, UH, BECAUSE THEY APPLIED THE WRONG CRITERIA. UM, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN REALLY SHE, SHE GETS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. BUT I, I'M PREPARED TO ACTUALLY TO DO THAT TOO, BECAUSE I THINK APPLYING THE NON-CONTRIBUTING CRITERIA, THIS KIND OF MATCHES A 1960S HOUSE. IT'S NOT, I MEAN, IT'S REALLY KIND OF RESERVED FOR EGREGIOUS, STRANGE THINGS THAT DESTROY THE CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE. I JUST DON'T THINK YOU CAN GET INTO THIS LEVEL OF, OF DETAIL ON A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING. BUT, YOU KNOW, UM, AND, AND, UH, AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH SHE SAID SHE WANTS THAT THE WINDOWS AS IS AND THEY PROPOSE A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION, I DON'T THINK SHE HAD A CHANCE TO PROPOSE SOME OTHER CHEAPER FIX THAT WOULD ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS WITHOUT HAVING NEW THINGS FABRICATED, WHICH I THINK IS HER PREROGATIVE TO DO AS THE APPLICANT TO SAY, OKAY, I UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T LIKE THESE, WHATEVER, HOW ABOUT IF I, YOU KNOW, PAINT THEM OR CHANGE THE MULLING OR WHATEVER IT IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S, THAT'S HER, IT'S HER PROPERTY. IT'S HER DECISION TO FIND OUT IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT SHE'S OKAY WITH COMING INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE AND SHE WASN'T GIVEN THAT OPPORTUNITY. UM, SO THAT'S A PROBLEM. ANYWAY, I THINK I'VE EXPRESSED HOW I FEEL. I DON'T KNOW HOW I WOULD SAY THAT I FEEL SIMILARLY, UM, IF WE'RE WRAPPING THE DISCUSSION, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER? IF THERE IS A MOTION WE CAN BRING THE MOTION FORWARD. OKAY. UM, UH, COMMISSIONER, OR AM I COMMISSIONER OR AM A APPEALS BOARD BOARD MEMBER? ELLIOT? UH, I WOULD MOVE TO, UH, REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE HHC, UH, NUMBER ONE FOR MS, APPLYING THE, UH, CRITERIA TO A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING. AND, UH, NUMBER TWO FOR, UM, I GUESS THAT'S ENOUGH . AND THEN I WOULD ALSO THOUGH MOVE TO, UH, GRANT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. DO YOU THINK WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT OR, I, I, I DON'T WANT TO PROCEDURALLY MAKE IT SO DIFFICULT FOR SOMEBODY. RIGHT. I THINK IF YOU'RE REVERSING [00:30:01] THEIR DECISION, THAT COULD BE TO GRANT THE GRANT TO, TO OVERRIDE THE CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION RECOMMENDATION AND TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE AND TO ISSUE THEIR DECISION WAS TO DENY THE CERTIFICATE, YOU WOULD BE REVERSING THAT DECISION AS WELL. OKAY. AND SO, YEAH, I'LL DO THAT. OKAY. LET ME START OVER. FOR THE RECORD, UH, BOARD MEMBER ELLIOT, I, I MOVED TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE HHC ON THE GROUNDS. THEY MISAPPLIED THE CRITERIA ADDITIONALLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT HAD THE CORRECT CRITERIA BEEN APPLIED, THE CERTIFICATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED. BOARD MEMBER VE AND I SECOND THAT MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. HELL, YOUR AYE M ADMINISTER. AYE. ELLIOT AYE. VIRA BLAND. AYE. AND I AM THE CHAIR. AYE. PA MOTION BY ELLIOT PASSES. THANK YOU. UM, I, I'LL SAY STAFF. WHY, IF YOU COULD SPEND SOME TIME WITH THE APPLICANT SO SHE UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE HAVE, WHAT WAS, WHAT HER NEXT STEPS ARE SO SHE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH HER PROCESS. WILL DO. THANK YOU. YEAH, AND, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SHE CAN GO WITH THIS ACTION BY THE BOARD TO SECURE THE BUILDING PERMIT AND CORRECT THOSE ISSUES. AND THAT THIS WOULD BE TO RETAIN WHAT IS PRESENTLY WHAT SHE HAS PUT IN. AND PLEASE TELL YOUR NEIGHBORS IF THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT REPLACING WINDOWS TO FOLLOW THE RULES. THAT'S WHY I TOOK A PICTURE OF IT. CAN'T ALWAYS GET IT OPEN. AGAIN. RETURNING BACK TO THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH WE HAD CALLED OUT OF ORDER. CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON JANUARY 18TH, 2024 FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. 4 7 6 1 0 ROCK HILL STREET, UH, AGAIN IN GLEN BROOK VALLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT. GOOD MORNING CHAIRPERSON. AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THIS IS STAFF PERSON SAMANTHA DELEON. I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM TWO AT 76 10 ROCK HILL STREET IN THE GLEN BROOK VALLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A COA FOR WINDOW ALTERATIONS IN OCTOBER, 2021. THE APPLICATION INCLUDED A WINDOW WORKSHEET FOR REPLACEMENT OF SIX ALUMINUM WINDOWS FOR VINYL WINDOWS. AFTER A SITE VISIT BY STAFF, THE APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN IN MARCH OF 2022. ON MARCH 6TH, OR ON NOVEMBER 6TH, 2023, THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A 3 1 1 COMPLAINT FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT A PERMIT OR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. ON NOVEMBER 7TH, AN INSPECTOR OBSERVED THAT THE FRONT WINDOWS HAD BEEN REPLACED FROM INSET ALUMINUM WINDOWS TO RESET VINYL MORPHINE WINDOWS. THE APPLICANT CALLED THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ON NOVEMBER 8TH, 2023 AND APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ONCE AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 16TH, 2023. ON, UH, JANUARY 18TH, 2024, THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION ACCEPTED STAFF'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF A DENIAL AND ISSUANCE OF A COR REQUIRING REVERSION A REVISION REVERSION TO INSET ALUMINUM WINDOWS. UH, THE APPLICANT FILED A NOTICE OF APPEALS ON JANUARY 26TH, 2024 DUE TO FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND IS REQUESTING THAT ALL VINYL WINDOWS BE KEPT IN PLACE. WERE INSTALLED CHAIRS, UH, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THE APPLICANT COULD NOT ATTEND TODAY, BUT HAS GIVEN ME A STATEMENT TO READ ON THEIR BEHALF. I'M ALSO AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THIS ONE IS ALSO NON-CONTRIBUTING BECAUSE I BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE HOUSE. OKAY. AND, UM, YEAH, IT WAS LISTED AS NON-CONTRIBUTING. THIS WASN'T A MISTAKE CORRECT. IN THE ORIGINAL INVENTORY. OKAY. CORRECT? YES, SIR. WHY DON'T YOU, UH, READ WHILE THEY'RE DELIBERATING AND WHY DON'T YOU READ THE STATEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT? NO PROBLEM. I HAVE IT HERE. UH, IT WAS SENT OVER THE WEEKEND. SO I HAVE THE DOCUMENT CAMERA, DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON. WE APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO VIRTUALLY ATTEND THIS MEETING. WE ARE WRITING YOU TODAY DUE DUE TO OUR RECENT APPEAL FOR THE DECISION MADE ON OUR WINDOW REPLACEMENT WORK. WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE WINDOWS OF OUR NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE DO NOT SATISFY THE CRITERIA. ONE, AN ISSUANCE OF COR REQUIRING REVERSION OF INSET ALUMINUM WINDOWS AS A FAMILY AND RESIDENCE OF THIS COMMUNITY, WE ASK THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER THEIR DECISION AND [00:35:01] UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT, UH, UNDERSTAND WEIGHT. WHAT WE DID WAS BEST FOR OUR FAMILY. OUR PREVIOUS WINDOWS WERE CORRECT PLASTIC, NOT GLASS, NOT ENERGY EFFICIENT. ALUMINUM FRAME WAS ROTTEN. WE HAVE MADE CONTACT WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT WINDOW EXPERTS AND NO GOOD OUTCOME HAS COME FROM IT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OPEN TO ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR IDEAS ON WHAT AND HOW TO COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING. PLEASE UNDERSTAND AT THIS TIME THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO DELIVER THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO INSET OR REVERSE TO ALUMINUM WINDOWS. WE HAVE DISCUSSED IT IN DUE TO FINANCIAL PURPOSES. AND BEING A MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY, WE ARE NOT ABLE MAKE THE CHANGE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, APPRECIATIVELY, MARISSA FLORES AND CHRISTIAN RIZO. UH, THIS, I MEAN, CAN TYPIFIES AGAIN, THE, THE PROBLEM WITH THE, THE C OF R PROCESS AS IT'S CURRENTLY PLAYED OUT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THESE PEOPLE APPEAR WILLING TO MAKE SOME CHANGE, UH, BUT NOT THE EXTENSIVE CHANGE THAT THE HHC CAME UP WITH ON THEIR OWN. SO, UM, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. UM, AND, AND FROM THE DISCUSSION, UH, IT SOUNDED LIKE IT REALLY WASN'T SO MUCH THEY NEED TO BE ALUMINUM. THEY JUST NEED TO LOOK, LOOK RIGHT. I MEAN, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, PAINT THEM TO LOOK LIKE A MILL FINISH, PUT A LITTLE DIVIDING LINE IN THE MIDDLE AND MAYBE THAT'S ENOUGH. BUT WE, WE WON'T KNOW BECAUSE THAT, UH, POSSIBILITY WASN'T PRESENTED TO THE HHC. UM, AND OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE MY COMMENTS ALREADY MADE BASICALLY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A MATCH, UH, A NON-CONTRIBUTING MATCH IS, IS AS RIGOROUS. AND I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK IT REQUIRES THE REPLACEMENT OF, UH, DIFFICULT TO SOURCE WINDOWS. UM, WHICH I JUST DON'T THINK IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE POWER OF THE HHC IS. IN ANY CASE, UM, IF THERE'S NOT ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ACTION? IT'S NOT AS GERMANE TO THE SPECIFIC TOPIC, BUT I JUST WOULD LOVE, I DON'T KNOW IF THE, IF THE STAFF CAN HAVE MORE OF A RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT HISTORIC, UH, COMMITTEE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR IF THERE'S A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REALTOR BOARD OR SOMETHING. BUT IT, IT'S JUST CONCERNING HOW OFTEN WE'RE SEEING CASES FROM GLENBROOK VALLEY WITH PEOPLE STATING THAT THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WERE. ALTHOUGH I KNOW IN THIS CASE THEY DID RECEIVE THE NEWSLETTER. I WAS ON THEIR WEBSITE LOOKING FOR MORE RECENT COPIES OF THE NEWSLETTER, AND I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING MORE RECENT THAN 2017. SO I, I'M NOT CLEAR ON HOW WELL THE RESTRICTIONS ARE BEING COMMUNICATED TO RESIDENTS. THIS IS KIM MICKELSON FROM LEGAL. I'LL ADD ON BEHALF OF STAFF CAN CERTAINLY CLARIFY, BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THIS IS OFTEN A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION AT HAHC, NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING THESE APPLICATIONS AND FOR CERTIFICATES OF REMEDIATION, BUT HOW TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT TO THE INDUSTRY, THE HOMEOWNERS, H-A-H-A-R, THE, THE REALTORS. AND SO THEY, THEY DO HAVE A WINDOW COMMITTEE THAT I, IHHC THAT I BELIEVE IS BEING REVAMPED. AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS, IS WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH THEM IN A DISTRICT LIKE THIS? UM, I KNOW, UH, ROMAN'S DONE SOME RESEARCH INTO OTHER CITY ORDINANCES ABOUT HOW ARE THEY HANDLING THE SWITCH FROM ALUMINUM TO SOMETHING MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT. SO I CAN SAY STAFF AND COMMISSIONER LOOKING AT IT AND IT'S, IT'S A YEAH, THORNY PROBLEM FOR THEM TOO. I KNOW ELSE SAY, AND YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT, YOU CAN BUY ALUMINUM WINDOWS THAT ARE INSULATED. GLA OR DOUBLE PANED IS MORE CON AND ARGON FILLED AND HAVE ALMOST ALL THE SAME ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF VINYL OR WOOD WINDOWS. UM, I, I FEEL LIKE, I THINK ALL OF US, I'M, BUT I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF, BUT I THINK EVERYONE ON THE, ON THE APPEALS BOARD AND THE COMMISSION ARE TIRED OF HEARING THE SAME JUSTIFICATION. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE HAD TO DO IT NOW. I CAN'T AFFORD TO AND WE'RE SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE. THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE. UM, IN MY OPINION, UM, THAT WORD GETS AROUND AND IT'S BETTER TO ASK FORGIVENESS THAN PERMISSION AND IN THIS CASE AND SOME OF THE OTHERS. SO I THINK IF WORD DOESN'T INDEED GET AROUND THAT ENOUGH, PEOPLE START, YOU KNOW, BEING PENALIZED FOR IT. THAT MAY ALSO HELP GET THE WORD AROUND TO THAT HISTORIC DISTRICT, THAT THERE ARE RULES THAT YOU HAVE TO ABIDE BY AS WELL AS THE PRESERVATION OFFICE AND A, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITIES, UH, NEWSLETTERS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AND SO FORTH, UM, [00:40:01] DRIVE THAT ISSUE HOME AS MUCH AS PROMOTE, I SHOULD SAY THE ISSUE AS MUCH AS US JUST SLAPPING HANDS. HAVE EITHER OF THESE APPLICANTS THAT WE'VE HAD TODAY RE WHAT HAVE THEY RECEIVED AS FAR AS, 'CAUSE BOTH OF THEM DIDN'T GET A BUILDING PERMIT EITHER. CORRECT. SO WHAT DID THEY GET IN REFERENCE TO THE FACT THEY DID NOT EVEN GET A BUILDING PERMIT, UH, FOR THE WORK DONE? SO THIS APPLICANT DID RECEIVE A RED TAG, UM, I BELIEVE SINCE THE COMMISSION, SHE HAS RECEIVED ANOTHER ONE, UH, SO TWO RED TAGS SO FAR. UM, AND UH, THAT'S TO MY KNOWLEDGE ALL THAT SHE'S RECEIVED, UM, OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, CONTACT WITH OUR OFFICE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE SHOULD SAY PUBLICLY THAT BEFORE THE RECORD, BOTH OF THESE PROJECTS, THIS ONE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW AND THE ONE PREVIOUSLY HAVE NEGATED PA FOLLOWING ANY OF THE RULES IN REFERENCE TO APPLYING FOR CONSTRUCTION. CORRECT. SHE DID NOT ONCE TRY TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE. UM, AND AGAIN, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, SHE DID APPLY TWO YEARS AGO TO CHANGE OUT HER WINDOWS PROPERLY AND THEN WITHDREW HER APPLICATION AND CHANGE THEM WITHOUT OUR SPOUSE. IT SPEAKS TO SOME DEGREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCESS, CORRECT? YEAH. UM, FROM MY CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT AND, AND BASED IN, ALSO BASED ON THE TRANSCRIPT, UM, TO HER KNOWLEDGE, SHE WASN'T ABLE TO GET IN CONTACT WITH ONE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS. UM, AND SO SHE WENT AHEAD AND WITHDREW THE APPLICATION AND DECIDED TO TWO YEARS LATER, UH, COMPLETE THE WORK. SO YES, THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE BEFORE I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET FROM THE APPLICANT WHY THEY DECIDED TO CIRCUMVENT, UH, THIS YEAR, UNFORTUNATELY, I KNOW THERE ARE CONTRACTORS OUT THERE WHO WILL TELL HOMEOWNERS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT TO DO THIS, THAT, OR THE OTHER WINDOW REPLACEMENT BEING ONE OF THEM. AND I'M SURE THERE'S A LOT OF HOMEOWNERS THAT DON'T KNOW OR THINK THAT YOU DO HAVE TO DO THAT, BUT, UM, WISH THAT WEREN'T THE CASE, BUT THAT THAT'S WHAT IT IS. AND I KNOW AS IN THE MIDDLE OF SELLING MY CONTRIBUTING HOME IN THE HEIGHT SOUTH DISTRICT, I KNOW IT GOES ON THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT DOESN'T SAY MUCH MORE THAN THAT, BUT IT SHOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON THE BUYERS IN THOSE CASES. LIKE WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, UM, THAT HISTORY IS, IS TROUBLING AND INFORMATIVE. AND IN THIS CASE, ACTUALLY, WHEN I SEE IT AS A KINDA A PICTURE WINDOW WITH NO DIVISION OR ANYTHING, IT ACTUALLY DOES LOOK A LITTLE MORE INCOMPATIBLE TO ME. SO I DON'T, UH, YOU KNOW, I'VE ISSUE WITH THIS CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION AND SO, BUT I DON'T THINK WE ACTUALLY NEED TO REVERSE THAT. IT'S JUST, IT'S SITTING OUT THERE. I MEAN, UM, UH, AND THEY APPLIED THE RIGHT CRITERIA, I THINK PERHAPS A LITTLE STRICTLY, BUT, UH, I DON'T KNOW. IT SEEMS POSSIBLE TO ME. I WISH THEY WOULD'VE CONSIDERED OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO LET THE PERSON REMEDIATE THE WORK AND HAVE IT BE MORE VISUALLY COMPATIBLE. SO, UM, I DON'T, I, UM, THAT'S ABOUT THAT. AND I'D SAY ALSO ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HAND SLAPPING OR THIS PROCESS HAS NO EFFECT ON PEOPLE. THE CITY ALSO DECLINES TO, YOU KNOW, PURSUE FINES IN MOST CASES, WHICH WOULD HAVE A, PROBABLY A PRETTY BIG EFFECT IF, IF NOT MORE THAN THE BUREAUCRATIC HURDLES THAT, UH, THAT COME THROUGH THIS PROCESS. SO I, I WILL SAY THE BUILDING PERMIT FEE IS TRIPLE THE AMOUNT WHEN YOU HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH IT. SO THAT, BUT YOU ARE CORRECT ON THE, ON, ON THE FINDING CHAIR, I, I'D LIKE TO BRING INTO THE DISCUSSION, I'M GONNA ASK YOU AS MEAN TO SHARE THE, WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIONS OF THE HHC, I WANT TO STATE YOUR NAME, ROMAN MCALLEN UP AT CITY, AT CITY HOUSTON. UM, WITH RESPECT TO THAT QUESTION OF HOW THE HHC DOES THE CERTIFICATES OF REMEDIATION, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN ZOOM IN HERE, BUT THE, UM, THIS LANGUAGE UNDER THE GENERAL PROVISION OF PRESERVATION, IT, IT HAS A STATEMENT WHICH I MAY BE MISINTERPRETING, BUT IT SAYS THAT THE COMMISSION, UM, MAY ISSUE THE C OF R AND THEN IT GOES ON IN THE SECOND PART OF THIS TO SAY THAT THE COMMISSION MAY, AS A CONDITION OF GRANTING THE CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION ALSO REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT REPAIR, RECONSTRUCT, OR RESTORE ALL OR PART OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS BESIDES THOSE REQUIRED. AND I THINK THAT I BE, THAT MY, UH, SENSE OF THIS IS THAT THE HHC, EVEN THOUGH THE PEOPLE AREN'T ASKING OFTEN, THEY'RE JUST ASKING TO DO WHAT THEY'VE DONE, [00:45:01] UH, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WORK THEY'VE DONE IN WITHOUT A PERMIT, WITHOUT A C OF A, LIKE INSTALLING THE WINDOWS. IN THIS CASE, I, I THOUGHT THAT THE HHC WAS TAKING ITS KIND OF DIRECTION FROM THIS PHRASE HERE, THAT, THAT IT SAYS THAT THEY MAY AS A CONDITION OF GRANTING IT, DO THESE OTHER THINGS. I MIGHT BE READING IT WRONG. I DON'T KNOW. NOW YOU'RE READING EXACTLY. CORRECT. I AGREE WITH THAT ENTIRELY. THERE'S ALSO SOMETHING IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS C OF R ARE ISSUED ON THE SAME CRITERIA AS AS A C OF A. SO LOOKING AT GLOBALLY AND, AND JUST THE WAY WE GENERALLY WANT TO HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER DIRECT THIS PROCESS, I THINK THEY'RE THE ONES THAT OUGHT TO INITIATE A POTENTIAL REMEDIATION AND SEE IF IT GETS APPROVAL, IT, IT, I THINK YOU GET INTO A DIFFICULT SITUATION WHEN IT'S THE, THE COMMITTEE IMPOSING THEIR DREAM OF, OF WHAT SHOULD OCCUR. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IF, UM, IF THE HHC WANTED TO COME UP WITH THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO REMODEL SOMETHING, THE STANDARDS WOULD PROBABLY BE A LOT HIGHER OR DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE HOMEOWNER ACTUALLY WANTS TO DO. SO I THINK THAT THAT KIND OF PARADIGM OUGHT TO APPLY IN THIS CONTEXT ALSO. AND THERE MIGHT BE SEVERAL METHODS THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF MEDIATION AND IT SHOULD BE THE HOMEOWNER'S PREROGATIVE TO PROPOSE ONES. IT'S MOST AGREEABLE TO THEM. IT SHOULDN'T BE INITIATED HHC, THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE. AND IT'S JUST AWKWARD. AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT, WHAT WE DO WITH THE FACT THAT THEY, THE APPLICANT HAS GOTTEN RELIEF, THEY'VE GOTTEN A C OF R AND THEY'RE APPEALING, THEY DON'T LIKE THE C OF R, YOU KNOW, AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT TO REVERSE THAT OR CHANGE IT. I DON'T THINK WE'RE THE RIGHT ONES TO CHANGE IT. UH, AND IF WE REVERSE IT, IT DOESN'T REALLY DO THE MANY FAVORS ANYWAY. 'CAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT NOW APPROVED. THEY JUST HAVE GOTTEN ONE LESS PATH FORWARD. SO, YOU KNOW, THEY NEED TO HAVE A PATH FORWARD THAT THEY ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, OR IF THEY DON'T AGREE WITH IT, THEY CAN SEEK TO HAVE IT REVERSED. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? MM-HMM . AND SO I THINK AN APPLICANT THAT JUST WANTS THEIR PREVIOUS WORK APPROVED OUGHT TO COME WITH A PLAN B AND OUGHT TO BE COUNSELED TO HAVE A PLAN B. IT SAYS, WELL, IF THIS GETS DENIED, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'RE WILLING TO DO TO TRY TO MAKE IT MORE COMPATIBLE AND COME INTO COMPLIANCE? AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE A LITTLE POSSIBLE THINGS THEY'RE ACTUALLY AGREEABLE WITH, AND IF THEY'RE NOT, WELL THEN JUST APPEAL AND THEY LUMP IT AND GET FINED AND THEY'RE PERPETUALLY, YOU KNOW, IN VIOLATION. BUT THEY SHOULDN'T BE APPEALING A, UH, A HIGH STANDARD FIX THAT THEY, THEY DON'T AGREE WITH, YOU KNOW? THANK YOU. DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE A MOTION TO BRING FORWARD ? I MEAN, I'M, I'M, I COULD KIND OF GO EITHER WAY, BUT I, IN THIS CASE, I SORT OF FEEL LIKE THEY APPLY THE CRITERIA A LITTLE MORE STRICTLY, BUT YOU KNOW, IN A WAY IT DOESN'T QUITE MATCH. IT PROBABLY COULD IF THEY WORK ON IT. SO I WOULD VOTE TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE HHC, UH, NOT THE, I MEAN THE C OF R IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE AFFIRM OR NOT BECAUSE THEY CAN SEEK A DIFFERENT C OF R IF THEY WANT. SO I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, AFFIRM MOVE TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE HHC, UH, AND NOT DO ANYTHING WITH THE C OF R. HELL. YOUR SECONDS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. I IF MR. AYE. VIRA BLAND. AYE ELLIOT. AYE. HELL. YOUR AYE BARTELL AYE, UH, MOTION BY ELLIOT PASSES. UH, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENTS. UM, I HAVE A COUPLE THINGS. . UM, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD PUT STAFF TO REVIEW THE, UM, THE CRITERIA IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT IN QUESTION THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT TODAY TO DEFINE WHERE PROBLEMS ARE. SO WE DON'T HAVE BUILDINGS THAT PEOPLE FEEL SHOULD BE NON-CONTRIBUTING, THAT ARE NON-CONTRIBUTING AND VICE VERSA. SO I WOULD ADVISE STAFF TO FIND TIME TO LOOK AT THIS MATTER SO THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME ALL THE WAY HERE. UM, AND THEN PREVIOUS MEETING WE ASKED FOR STATUS ON THINGS THAT WE HAVE SENT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. ARE THERE ANY UPDATES FOR ANY OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE SENT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AS FAR AS WHERE THEY'RE GOING AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THEM LAST TIME? UM, I'M, I BELIEVE WE COVERED THOSE LAST TIME. THERE, THERE WAS, THERE WAS ONE THAT WAS, YOU HAD SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE, THAT YOU WEREN'T PREPARED LAST TIME. OH, IS THAT, UH, WEST 11TH? THAT MAY BE THE, UH, [00:50:01] BUILDING WITH A FACADE THAT HAS NOT YET GONE BACK TO COMMISSION? BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE ONE THAT WAS LEFT WAS, I BELIEVE, A FACADE ON, UH, EITHER IT'S EITHER WHITE OAK OR WEST 11TH. I ALWAYS GET THOSE TWO MIXED UP, BUT, UH, AND THAT ITEM IS ACTUALLY MAY GO IN MAY, IT'S STILL NOT PREPARED TO GO BACK. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? UM, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA I THINK IS ADJOURNMENT. LET ME LOOK. YES. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ADJOURNMENT. DO I, UM, I CAN, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, I WILL CLOSE THIS MEETING. THANK YOU. * 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.