[Historic Preservation Appeals Board on June 17, 2024.]
[00:00:16]
I AM JD BARTEL, CHAIR OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER.THIS BOARD MEETING IS TAKING PLACE AT THE CITY HALL ANNEX AT 900 BAGBY.
ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO LONGER A VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION OPTION, HOUSTON TELEVISION OR HTV OFFERS VIEWING OPTIONS VIA THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEBPAGE, HTV PRESENTATION MODE PLEASE.
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.
LIBBY VIRA BLAND, VIRA BLAND, PRESENT AND INTERIM DIRECTOR.
UH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR NICOLE BRUSARD.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE CHAIR'S REPORT, AND I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON HOW THE MEETING WILL BE HELD.
UH, ALL SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER REQUEST FORM, TURN IT INTO THE FRONT DESK, AND EACH SPEAKER WILL BE HEARD IN PERSON.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE STAFF WILL OPEN A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE APPEAL THAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD.
THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE NEXT AND WILL BE GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.
I WILL THEN CALL ON THESE SPEAKERS IN THE ROOM WHO WISH TO MAKE COMMENTS.
WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL ALSO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY THE STAFF.
THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL IF DESIRED, BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKERS, WHICH WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THEIR TIME ALLOTTED FOR SPEAKING.
MAY I HAVE THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT? GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS.
I'M 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.
SEE THE ONLINE AGENDA FOR DETAILS AND SPEAKERS GUIDELINES.
HTV WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE AN OPTION TO VIEW THIS MEETING THROUGH THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA.
WITH THE RECENT WEATHER EVENTS, MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN OUR RESILIENCY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WORK.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESILIENCE PLANNING OR NRP ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS FOR GREATER INWOOD, BRAEBURN AND GREATER FIFTH WARD ARE COMPLETE AND ARE MOVING INTO IMPLEMENTATION.
THESE NEIGHBORHOOD'S, FULL REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE AT LET'S TALK HOUSTON.ORG/NRP.
IF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING YOUR OWN RESILIENCY PLAN, YOU CAN MODEL YOUR EFFORTS USING THESE REPORTS.
AS AN EXAMPLE, CONTACT OUR COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING DIVISION AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 6 3 7.
WE'RE STILL LOOKING TO RESCHEDULE THE ANNUAL ETHICS TRAINING.
UH, MORE INFORMATION ON THAT DATE WILL COME LATER, BUT THE SPECIAL CAMP FOR THE HISTORIC COMMISSIONERS IS ON FOR JULY 19TH, 2024.
AND OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM WOULD LOVE TO WELCOME OUR SUMMER INTERN JARIUS JONES.
HE'S AN UNDERGRAD ARCHITECTURE STUDENT AT SAVANNAH COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN.
IN CLOSING, 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.
THAT CONCLUDES THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
THE PRIOR MEETING MINUTES WERE POSTED WITH THIS AGENDA.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ACCEPT THESE MINUTES? PLEASE STATE YOUR LAST NAME WHEN YOU MAKE A OR SECOND.
SECOND HELL YOUR, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
UH, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE ADOPTION OF SPEAKERS, GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES.
WE'RE OMITTING THIS BECAUSE THIS WAS ADDRESSED AT THE PRIOR MEETING THAT WE HELD.
[00:05:02]
AFTER THAT ITEM, WE HAVE ITEM ONE CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON MAY 9TH, 2024 FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 8 0 7 WOODLAND STREET IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT.MAY I HAVE THE STAFF REPORT? THANK YOU CHAIR, AND GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR TIME THIS MORNING.
THIS IS A ITEM THAT YOU MIGHT BE RECALL OR BE FAMILIAR WITH.
IT'S 8 0 7 WOODLAND STREET AND THE WORK HERE.
I'LL SPEAK TO THE WORK AS THOUGH IT'S GONNA BE, IT'S A PROPOSAL, BUT THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION.
SO THE WORK, SOME OF THE WORK, MOST OF THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE PROPOSING SOME CHANGES.
SO THE PROPOSED WORK IS AN ADDITION OF 228 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING SINGLE CAR GARAGE OF 228 SQUARE FEET.
THE, A CHANGE THAT'S OCCURRED FROM THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION IS THAT THE FRONT FACING ROOF WOULD BE A HIP ROOF, AND THE RIDGE HEIGHT INSTEAD OF IS, HAD BEEN REDUCED BY A FOOT TO 20 FEET AND SEVEN INCHES.
THERE ARE ALSO A PAIR OF SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS THAT FACE THE NORTH NOT VISIBLE, AND IT WOULD, IT'D BE, UH, CLAD AND CEMENT LAPSED SIDING, WHICH MATCHES THE EXISTING LOWER BUILDING.
THERE'D BE NO DOOR ON THE SECOND LEVEL, AND THIS IS ALSO A CHANGE.
AND THE EXISTING SIDE SETBACK IS THREE FEET, THREE INCHES.
THE HHC DENIED THE APPLICATION AND, AND DID NOT ISSUE A C OF R BASED ON CRITERIA THREE A AND THREE B.
AND SINCE I'LL BE STATING THAT LATER IN THE PORT, I'LL, I'LL GO OVER THOSE.
THE APPLICANT'S GROUND FOR APPEAL AS STATED BY THE APPLICANT, THE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL IS STATED BY THE APPLICANT, ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR REPORT, THE BOTTOM OF PAGE ONE, AND THE FIRST THING HE STATES IS THAT IT, THE OFFICE OF PRESERVATION DID, UH, SUPPORT THE APPLICATION, WHICH IS TRUE.
WE DID, UH, RECOMMEND APPROVAL AT THE HHC.
THE, UH, NOT THAT I'M GONNA SAY WHAT'S TRUE AND NOT TRUE ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LIST, JUST LETTING YOU KNOW, I I AGREE TO THAT.
THAT'S, THAT'S A BOLD STATEMENT, BUT IT, WE DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL NUMBER TWO.
UH, THE APPEALS BOARD, UH, THE APPLICANT FELT WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT AS LONG AS FOUR ITEMS WERE RESOLVED.
AND THAT WAS TO REMOVE THE SECOND STORE DOOR OR BILL A ONE HOUR FIRE RAW.
AND THAT WAS ONE AND NUMBER TWO, THAT THE EAVES, IF THEY PROTRUDE, HAD TO BE A ONE HOUR FIRE RATED AND SET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, A MINIMUM OF TWO FEET PER FIRE CODE, NO OPEN ROOF AFTER TAILS.
UH, IN OTHER WORDS, WE REQUIRE BOXED SOFFITS WITH A ONE HOUR FI FIRE RATING, AND ALSO A SUGGESTION THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT LEARN OF ANY OTHER CHANGES THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED IN ORDER FOR THE PROJECT TO BE CODE COMPLIANT.
THE APPLICANT SAYS THE ALL FOUR OF THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED AND THERE ARE DEPICTED IN THE CURRENT APPLICATION.
NUMBER THREE, YOU'VE AGREED TO SHORTEN THE ROOF AND CHANGE THE, UH, UH, OR CHANGE THE ROOF PITCH BY SHORTENING THE ROOF THERE.
NUMBER FOUR, UM, THIS SPEAKS TO THAT THE, ON JULY 5TH, THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A LETTER FROM HHC THAT OUR PROJECT HAD BEEN APPROVED.
IN FACT, THAT WAS A LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF PRESERVATION.
IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
SO INITIALLY, UM, I'M NOT EXACTLY, THAT WAS A LETTER OR AN EMAIL, BUT THE APPLICANT THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO GET AN APPROVAL.
AND THEN WHILE DRAFTING AND ABOUT TO SEND FORTH THAT LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR FOR HIS SIGNATURE WAS WE REALIZED THE WORK HAD BEEN DONE ALREADY ON THE PROJECT.
SO IT REALLY NEEDED A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION.
SO THEN BY ORDINANCE, WE'RE REQUIRED TO GO TO COMMISSION, AND WE DIDN'T ISSUE, IN FACT, THE FINAL APPROVED, UH, DOCUMENT, OR IF WE DID, WE RETRACTED IT.
THE CURRENT, UH, NUMBER FIVE IS, UM, THAT I CURRENTLY HAVE SUPPORT FROM ALL FIVE OF THE NEIGHBORS AROUND MY PROPERTY LINE OTHER THAN ONE.
AND THIS INCLUDES 8 0 2 WOODLAND, 8 0 8 WOODLAND, 8 0 3 WOODLAND, EIGHT 14 WOODLAND, AND 8 0 8 BAYLIN.
THE OTHER TWO PROPERTIES THAT SURROUND MY HOME ARE VACANT AND I'M UNABLE TO GET THEIR SUPPORT.
NUMBER SIX, I'VE MADE POSITIVE CHANGES TO THE HOME.
UH, JUST A GENERAL STATEMENT THAT HE'S ADDED SOLAR PANELS TO HIS HOME.
HE, UH, REDUCING HIS ENERGY CONCEPTION BY 50%, AND HE'S ADDED A BATTERY BACKUP INSTEAD OF RELYING ON A GAS GENERATOR, HE HAS AN ELECTRIC CAR THAT CHARGES WITH SOLAR PANELS, THE COMPOST, AND HE REPLACED THE MAJORITY OF HIS LAWN WITH NATIVE PLANTINGS TO REDUCE WATER CONSUMPTION.
AND THIS SORT OF SPEAKS TO WHAT THE HHC IS ASKING.
WELL, THIS SORT OF SPEAKS TO, UH, IF HE WAS GONNA PUT THE GARAGE IN THE REAR, HE WOULD HAVE MORE, UH, PAVEMENT TO GET THERE.
NUMBER SEVEN, REMOVING, UH, THE AL THE ALREADY APPROVED GARAGE ADDITION WOULD BE EXPENSIVE,
[00:10:01]
EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.REMOVAL WOULD ALSO CREATE OVER TWO FULL DUMPSTERS OF MATERIALS THAT'LL GO TO THE LANDFILL.
AND NUMBER EIGHT, UM, THERE IT IS, EIGHT TIES IT TOGETHER.
UM, IT'S THAT, UH, THAT THE NEW ADDITION MATCHES ALL THE FINISHES OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AND IS PLACED ON THE BACK HALF OF MY PROPERTY PER HISTORIC DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION.
AND I PRESUME THAT MEANS TO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE EXISTING NON, UM, NON-CONTRIBUTING GARAGE WAS THERE AND APPROVED IN 2018.
OUR EXTERIOR DECK IS AT THE BACK CORNER OF OUR PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE ONLY USABLE EXTERIOR SPACE, AND I DON'T AGREE WITH ADDING A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY IN LIEU OF VEGETATION AND DECK SPACE.
WE WOULD BE LOSING SEVERAL MATURE TREES IN THAT PROCESS.
THAT'S THE APPLICANT'S BASIS FOR APPEAL.
I'D LIKE TO GO FORWARD NOW TO WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO HHC.
UH, IF WE COULD GO, UH, JASON TO, UH, THERE IT IS A CIAL APPROPRIATENESS THAT THEY CONSIDERED, WHICH, UH, AGAIN, WAS A TWO STORY.
UH, UM, WELL, LET ME STATE THAT BACK UP.
UNDER SIGNIFICANCE, A TWO STORY REAR EDITION WAS ADDED TO THE CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC RESIDENCE ON THE SITE.
AND A, UH, SINGLE DETACHED GARAGE WAS APPROVED IN FEBRUARY OF 2018 BY THE HHC.
THIS APPLICANT DIDN'T DO THAT WORK.
THIS IS THIS OWNER AND APPLICANT BOUGHT THE PROPERTY LATER.
THE, UM, PROJECT IS AGAIN, AS, AS WE STATED THERE TO THE CRITERIA ON THE NEXT PAGE, WE HAVE, UH, THE ALTERATIONS TO CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT DURING OUR DISCUSSION, HAC, IT WAS MENTIONED, UH, WOULD WE APPROVE IT IF IT WAS A NEW, A NEW CONSTRUCTION OR RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF NEW CONSTRUCTION? WELL, IT ISN'T, AND NEW CONSTRUCTION ACTUALLY HAS DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.
SO THIS IS AN ALTERATION TO A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
AND, UH, IT SATISFIES ONE A AND B, BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRYING TO AVOID, IT'S TRYING TO MAKE AN ALTERATION THAT CHANGES THE APPEARANCE OR CREATE AN EARLIER APPEARANCE OF THE STRUCTURE.
UM, AND THE, IT MATCHES THE FEATURES OF THE LOWER BUILDING THAT IT'S PUT UPON.
SO, THREE A THOUGH IS WHERE THE HAC DID NOT AGREE.
THREE A SAYS THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE FRONT AND SIDEWALLS PORCHES AND EXTERIOR FEATURES OF ANY PROPOSED ADDITION OR ALTERATION MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF SIMILAR ELEMENTS OF EXISTING CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE CONTEXT AREA.
AND THEIR STAFFS NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT CHANGE THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE FRONT AND THE SIDE WALLS, B AND B, IT NEEDS TO MEET.
AND B SAYS THAT THE NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE WITH THE CONSTRUCTED ADDITION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TYPICAL PROPORTIONS AND SCALE OF EXISTING CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE CONTEXT AREA.
AND THIS IS WHERE THE STAFF SAYS THE NON-CONTRIBUTING GARAGE WITH THE SECOND FLOOR EDITION IS DIMINUTIVE AND SET BACK MORE THAN 50% FROM THE FRONT PORCH GABLE OF THE PRIMARY HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
THE GARAGE WITH PROPOSED EDITION HAS NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
FURTHER, SLIGHTLY TANGENTIAL, THE NON-CONTRIBUTING ONE STORY, SINGLE WIDTH, 228 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION WITH THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED WOULD STILL HAVE A 228 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT AND A RIDGE HEIGHT OF 20 FEET, SEVEN INCHES, WHICH IS TWO FEET BELOW THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC HOME'S RIDGE HEIGHT.
THERE ARE THREE, TWO STORY GARAGES IN THE CONTEXT AREA THAT HAVE FOOTPRINTS THAT ARE AT LEAST TWICE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION.
ALBEIT THOSE ARE AT THE REAR OF THE LOT IN MY ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT THIS, UH, ARGUMENT IN THIS STAFFER, WHICH I DRAFTED, THE, UM, I WANTED TO NOTE THAT THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, UH, APPEAR TO ME TO, UH, BE LESS, UH, STRINGENT, IF YOU WILL, OR AT LEAST WOULD IMPLY THAT OUR LOCAL CRITERIA SHOULD BE INTERPRETED.
UH, LET NOT SO STRINGENTLY OR, I MEAN, THE REASON IS, LET ME GO THROUGH 'EM HERE ON THAT, ON THE NEXT PAGE.
UM, SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE HISTORICALLY THAT THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS ARE THE BASIS FOR OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE, AS ARE THEY ARE FOR ALMOST ALL LOCAL ORDINANCES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
INTENTIONALLY OR NOT, THE TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION HAS A TEMPLATE FOR A HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE IF A CITY WANTS TO ADOPT ONE, AND OURS LOOKS REMARKABLY SIMILAR TO THAT WITH A LOT OF EXTRA STUFF IN IT.
SO, AND THAT COMES, OF COURSE, BACK TO THE NATIONAL PRESERVATION ACT, BUT THE REAL BEGINNING OF, OF SOME OF THE DOCUMENTATION GOES TO THE VENICE CHARTER.
AND I'M JUST GONNA STATE WHAT'S UNDERLINED HERE IN THE VENICE CHARTER.
[00:15:01]
HISTORIC RESOURCES, NOT AS UNCHANGEABLE WORKS OF ART, BUT AS IMPORTANT PARTS OF OUR ENTIRE BUILT ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION.ABOUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, STANDARD NINE AND NINE AND 10 SEEM TO BE RELEVANT.
NINE IS THAT NEW ADDITIONS, EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS, OR RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT DESTROY HISTORIC MATERIALS, FEATURES AND SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT CHARACTERIZE THE PROPERTY.
NEW WORK WILL BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE OLD AND WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH HISTORIC MATERIALS.
AND FINALLY, THE PROJECT THAT, THAT THINGS THEY SCALE, THESE SUCH AND SUCH, HAS TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS ENVIRONMENT.
THE STANDARD 10 IS THAT NEW ADDITIONS AND ADJACENT OR RELATED NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL BE UNDERTAKEN IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IF REMOVED IN THE FUTURE, THE ESSENTIAL FORM AND INTEGRITY OF HISTORIC PROPERTY AND ITS ENVIRONMENT WOULD BE UNIMPAIRED.
I FEEL THAT BOTH OF THESE ARE MET IN THIS APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO ALTERATIONS UNDER THE STANDARDS.
THERE'S A LINE THAT SAYS MOST IMPORTANT, THAT SUCH ALTERATIONS DO NOT RADICALLY CHANGE, OBSCURE OR DESTROY, DESTROY CHARACTER DEFINING SPACES.
SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DISTRICT, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT PROPERTIES AND ITS STRUCTURES, RELATIONSHIPS TO THE DISTRICT, OR WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND THE STRUCTURE AND THE HOUSE ITSELF AS A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING IN THE, IN THE DISTRICT, THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, THIS IS ABOUT NEW CONSTRUCTION.
BUT EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE THE DIRECTION OF NEW CONSTRUCTION, NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THE HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP SIGNIFICANTLY IS A KEY WORD OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS OR BUILDINGS TO THEIR IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS AND OR OBSCURE PRIMARY VIEWS OF THE HISTORIC PROPERTY.
PRIMARY VIEWS IS UNOBSTRUCTED IN THIS CASE.
AND ON THE NEXT PAGE, ONE COMMENT THERE, AND THIS IS JUST IN, IN THE FIELD GUIDE, THE FIELD, THE GUIDE FOR HISTORIC TAX CREDIT INCENTIVE FOR THE PROGRAM, THE TAX INCENTIVE PER THE FEDERAL PROGRAM, IT MENTIONS THAT LARGE TAIL SCALE CONSTRUCTION IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A HISTORIC BUILDING MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN A DENSE URBAN CONTEXT, BUT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN A RULE OR, OR A A OR DESIGN SETTING.
SO, UH, HOUSTON'S A HYBRID OF THAT, AND I ONLY POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE WE, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT COME INTO PLAY, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THIS IS A, A GUIDANCE ON HOW TO BUILD IN AN AREA.
SO WITH THAT OUT OF THE WAY, SOME PICTURES HERE, IF WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, UH, THERE'S THE MAP, OF COURSE, THE DISTRICT.
WE'VE GOT, UH, GO AHEAD TO THE NEXT PAGE.
IT'S AN INVENTORY PHOTO ON THE TOP WHEN THE BUILDING WAS ACTUALLY STILL CLAD WITH SOME FORM OF SYNTHETIC SIDING.
AND THEN THE IMAGE BELOW THAT SIDING WAS REMOVED AND THE BUILDING RESTORED.
ON THE NEXT PAGE IS THE CURRENT FACADE, AND THE NEXT PAGE IS A, IS A STRAIGHT SHOT OF THAT GAR, UH, GARAGE AND THE CARPORT IN FRONT OF IT.
THERE IS A CARPORT IN FRONT OF IT.
WE, WE'VE REALLY HAVEN'T DISCUSSED IT.
IT ISN'T, UH, IT DIDN'T RECEIVE A C OF A, IT WAS THERE WHEN THIS OWNER APPLICANT APPLIED OR PURCHASED HIS HOUSE.
IT WAS THERE, YOU CAN SEE IT ON HIS SURVEY, WHICH IS INCLUDED.
AND IT'S ACTUALLY A VERY APPROPRIATE GARAGE.
AGAIN, ONE, WE PROBABLY A CARPORT.
I MEAN, WE WOULD APPROVE, BUT THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.
BUT IMPORTANT TO THIS PICTURE, IT'S HARD TO SEE THE HOUSE ON THE RIGHT, BUT THERE'S THE, THE, UH, STRUCTURE.
THE NEXT PAGE DOES GIVE YOU A GLIMPSE OF, UH, THE ORIGINAL GARAGE THERE ON THE LEFT.
AND I, AND SINCE WE CAN'T GO OUT THERE, I WISH WE WERE ALL IN A BUST LOOKING AT IT, BUT WE'RE NOT.
SO I'VE GOTTA TAKE IT THROUGH.
THE NEXT PAGE IS A PICTURE ON THE TOP OF, UH, THE NEIGHBOR TO THE LEFT.
UM, THEY HAVE A LARGER LOT THAT HAS A GARAGE APARTMENT TYPE STRUCTURE ON THE, AS YOU SEE THERE IN THE, IN THE BACK.
AND THAT HAS A LITTLE, UH, DECK ON THE FRONT OF IT.
AND THE PROPOSED BUILDING, I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW MANY FEET THE OWNER CAN SPEAK TO.
IT MIGHT BE A FOOT, FOOT AND A HALF, TWO FEET IN FRONT OF THAT PORCH.
THEN THE LOWER IMAGES JUST SHOW, UH, ONE GAR SINGLE STORY GARAGE ON THE LEFT DOUBLE CAR, AND THEN ONE, UH, GARAGE APARTMENT ON THE RIGHT.
UH, THIS NEXT PAGE IS AN ATTEMPT TO SHOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROPOSED GARAGE, WHICH IS TO THE RIGHT OF THE TREE IN THE MIDDLE, THE PECAN THERE IN THE MIDDLE.
AND THEN THE, UH, TO THE LEFT IS THE OTHER PERSON'S THE LEFT GARAGE.
UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, SHOWS YOU THE RELATIONSHIP.
WE'RE LOOKING NOW ON THE PROPERTY LINE.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS ON OUR RIGHT, AND ON THE LEFT IS A GARAGE APARTMENT.
NEXT PAGE IS AN IMAGE LOOKING FORWARD JUST, UH, BETWEEN THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND THE GARAGE.
AND THEN THE NEXT PAGE IS THAT REAR DECK THAT THE APPLICANT AND HIS FAMILY, UM, USE.
[00:20:01]
AND YOU CAN NOTE HERE, I JUST NOTE, I MEAN, HOW CLOSE THE GARAGE NEXT DOOR IS TO THE PROPERTY.IF, IF WE TOOK A MEASUREMENT FROM THE BACK OF THAT WINDOW UNIT, WE'RE PROBABLY, UH, 18, 19, 20 INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
NEXT PAGE, THE, UM, NEXT PAGE IS MEANT TO JUST SHOW THE CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT.
SO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BLOCK, ALL OF THE HOUSES ARE CONTRIBUTING ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
UH, THREE ARE, AND, UH, 1, 2, 3 ARE NOT.
NUMBER 8 0 8 IS PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE OF ALTERATIONS.
I THINK 8 0 2 IS A NEWER STRUCTURE, AND 8 1 4, UH, COULD HAVE BEEN, IT WAS JUST SLIGHTLY OUTSIDE OF THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE WHEN THE DISTRICT WAS CREATED.
ALSO IN THIS IMAGE ARE BOXES AROUND GARAGES IN THE, IN THE REAR OF THE LOTS OR GARAGES, AND THEY'RE LABELED ONE STORY OR TWO STORY.
AND THEN IT'S IMAGE ON 8 0 7, THERE IS A BOX SHOWING THE GARAGE IN QUESTION.
THIS IS AN, THIS IS SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE SUPPORTED AND WHO HAVE SIGNED.
AND THOSE ARE THE SIGNATURES THAT THEY HAVE SAID THEY SUPPORT THE GARAGE EDITION AT 8 0 7.
ON THE NEXT PAGE IS INFORMATION THAT WE GOT AF AFTER WE CAME TO YOU BEFORE.
WE HAVE THESE, UH, IMAGES FROM THE HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT.
AND THE, UM, TOP IMAGE SHOWS THE HOUSE TO THE LEFT.
BUT ON THE FAR RIGHT YOU SEE A, A GARAGE, IT LOOKS LIKE A QUO HUT.
UM, AND THAT IS A GARAGE THAT DIDN'T SHOW UP ON A SAND BOARD, AND WE DIDN'T KNOW HAD EVER BEEN THERE.
AND IT APPEARS TO BE KIND OF IN LINE, PRETTY CLOSE TO IN LINE, MAYBE A LITTLE FORWARD OF THE BUILDING TO THE LEFT.
AND THE IMAGE AT THE BOTTOM SHOWS THAT FURTHER WITH TWO KIDS PLAYING IN THE STREET.
AND ON THE NEXT PAGE THERE JUST MERGED THOSE IMAGES.
AND ALSO JUST A LITTLE WORK, UM, FROM THE COUNTY.
THE, THE EVOLUTION OF GARAGES OR AUXILIARY BUILDINGS WAS DEFINITELY PART, AS Y'ALL ALL KNOW OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
HOUSES WERE MOVED, BUILDINGS WERE MOVED, BUILDINGS WERE DEMOLISHED, BUILDINGS WERE BUILT.
SO THE LEFT SHOWS THAT THE HOUSE ON THE LEFT, ACTUALLY AT ONE TIME HAD TWO GARAGES.
IF YOU TOOK THAT HARRIS COUNTY RECORD BACK, YOU SEE THAT THE GARAGE ON THE LEFT IN THAT PICTURE HAD DETERIORATED QUITE BADLY.
BUT AT THE MOMENT THAT THE APPRAISER DROVE BY OR WALKED BY, UH, HE DREW THIS MAP PLAN.
AND YOU SEE ACTUALLY THAT THAT GARAGE ON THE RIGHT IS SLIGHTLY FORWARD, ACTUALLY CLEARLY FORWARD BY TWO FEET OF THE ORIGINAL HISTO GARAGE.
ON THE LEFT, ON THE NEXT PAGE IS, UH, A SITE PLAN THAT THE OWNER, WHEN THE OWNER PURCHASED HIS PROPERTY.
SO IT, UM, SHOWS YOU THE, THE WHOLE SITE AS IT'S LAID OUT.
AND THEN ON THE NEXT PAGE, AND I'M ALMOST DONE, I'LL TAKE QUESTIONS, IS JUST AN WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS THE HISTORIC COMMISSION LOOKING AT IN 2018? THESE TWO IMAGES ARE FROM THE 2018 APPLICATION WITH THE BLUE THIN LINES ADDED FOR ME TO SHOW YOU THAT THE PROPOSED GARAGE, THE NEW GARAGE, WHICH IS IN THE LOWER IMAGE, IS SEVERAL FEET BACK FROM THE MIDPOINT IF YOU START AT THE FRONT GABLE OF THE PORCH.
SO THESE BLUE LINES, ONE IS AT THE FRONT GABLE, ONE'S AT THE REAR, AND ONE'S IN THE MIDDLE.
AND YOU SEE THAT PROPOSED PROJECT THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT.
THEN THIS NEXT PAGE IS JUST A KIND OF A PROPOSED SITE PLAN OF THE, UH, PROPERTY WITH THE NEW SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, WHICH IS FOR STORAGE AND JUST THE PLACEMENT AND THE TREES AND THE FIREWALL.
NOW TO THE DRAWINGS, THEY'RE NOT, UH, MUCH VERY SIMPLE.
OF COURSE, DESIGN UP THE UPPER DRAWING THAT YOU SEE HERE IS THE, WHAT WAS EXISTING BEFORE THE SECOND FLOOR WAS ADDED.
AND DOWN BELOW IS REALLY A PROPOSED BECAUSE IF, UH, IF HE HAD A CERTIFICATE REMEDIATION, HE WOULD MAKE THE CHANGE OF THE HIP ROOF AND LOWER THE OVERALL RIDGE HEIGHT BY CHANGING THE RISE OVERRUN.
NEXT PAGE IS A SIDE VIEW OF THE SAME THING.
AND FINALLY, THE, THE NEXT PAGE, AGAIN FROM 2018 ON THE TOP LEFT OR THE TOP IS WHAT THE HHC APPROVED.
IF THEY WERE SEEING THIS APPLICATION TODAY, OR WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT TODAY IS TO DO WHAT'S IN THE LOWER PICTURE.
BRING THAT PIECE ON THE TOP, AND THERE THE FEW OTHER PAGES IN YOUR DOCUMENT, MOST IMPORTANT OF WHICH IN THERE IS A NEIGHBOR HERE TO SPEAK, MR. HERRICK.
[00:25:01]
AND HIS INITIAL LETTER TO IN NOVEMBER 22 IS THE LAST PAGE OF YOUR STAFF REPORT.I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE, UH, QUESTIONS.
UM, USUALLY WE ASK YOU QUESTIONS.
THE NOTES PROVIDED BY STAFF SAYS THAT WE ARE TO ASK QUESTIONS AFTER EVERYONE'S SPOKEN.
SO IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, YOU'RE THE CHAIR YOU GET TO CALL IT.
SO, IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, IT MADE A APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION AFTER IT HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND IT WAS IN, IT MET THE CRITERIA FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND, UM, WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT IT HAD ALREADY BEEN BUILT AND THAT APPROVAL WAS CANCELED OR RESCINDED OR, OR WHATEVER.
SO THAT'S WHAT PUT THE WHEELS INTO MOTION FOR THE, THE TWO MEETINGS NOW, UM, AND FIND FURTHER CLARIFICATION.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AT THE MAY COMMISSION MEETING WAS TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION CONTINGENT UPON THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED, THE REFRAMING OF THE ROOF, ELIMINATION OF THE DOOR OR FIREWALL IN ITS PLACE.
AND, UH, AND IT BASICALLY, AND THAT WAS DENIED BY THE COMMISSION, THE COR? THAT IS CORRECT.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE TIME TO ASK, WHAT DID THE COMMISSION WANT THE APPLICANT TO DO? TEAR IT OFF AND THEN APPLY, AND IF SO, WOULD THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL? AGAIN, IF IT MET THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA LAST SUMMER OR LAST FALL, WHENEVER IT WAS, WOULDN'T IT STILL MEET THE, IF HE CAME BACK AND PROPOSED WHAT IT HAD IT MET THAT WOULD BE APPROVED? WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT THEY THOUGHT WOULD HAPPEN, BUT BY NOT ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION, IN ORDER FOR HIM TO HAVE HIS PROPERTY COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CITY ORDINANCE, I BELIEVE HE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE SECOND FLOOR.
SO THAT'S THE WAY I'LL ANSWER THAT FIRST PART, THAT THEY WOULD, YOU WOULD EXPECT HIM TO REMOVE THE SECOND FLOOR TO THE NEXT QUESTION? I THINK A LOT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT HAPPENS HERE AND THERE BECAUSE, UH, AND IT'S A LITTLE TOUCHY.
I'M NOT THE FINAL SIGNATURE ON MM-HMM
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND I COULD ONLY THINK THAT IF I HAVE HEARD FROM AN H, THE HHC, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY YOU UPHOLD THE, THIS, THIS COMMISSION UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE HHC.
IF YOU UPHOLD THE DECISION OF HHC, I WOULD TAKE THAT AS A LEARNING LESSON AND SAY WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
I AS IF I WAS THE SIGNATURE ON APPROVAL ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS, IT WOULD BE HARD NOT TO SIGN IT.
BUT THIS BODY AND THE OTHER BODY ARE THE INTERPRETERS.
AND I, I THINK I, I'D BE IN A HARD SPOT IF IT CAME BACK AND IT WAS TAKEN OFF.
I, I WOULD GO TO LEGAL FOR GUIDANCE.
UM, BUT I, I, I WOULD BE FOOLISH NOT TO, TO LOOK AT IT DIFFERENTLY THAN I WOULD'VE LOOKED AT THEN.
I DID LOOK AT IT WHEN IT CAME BEFORE.
WELL, I WANNA SAY THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COMMISSION DIDN'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS AS TO WHAT WAS BUILT, JUST THAT IT DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PROCESS OF GETTING HIS APPROVAL FROM THE PRESERVATION OFFICE AND PERMITTING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
UM, AND I WOULD SAY THIS, LIKE I DISAGREE.
THAT, AND THE, THE, THE GUIDELINES, IF YOU WILL, AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT, THERE'S NO DESIGN GUIDELINES IN, IN WOODLAND HEIGHTS, BUT IT CALLS OUT IN THE ORDINANCE WHAT QUALIFIES AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR A GARAGE APARTMENT.
AND THAT'S IN BLACK AND WHITE.
AND NOTHING CHANGES THAT IN MY MIND.
AND TO START MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON SOME ARBITRARY DECISIONS OF COMMISSIONERS IS, UH, IS THE WRONG PATH TO TAKE MY OPINION.
WHAT, WHAT TOOK IT OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL? I THOUGHT THE FACT THAT THEY HAD PROCEEDED WITHOUT A PERMIT MEANT YOU NO LONGER HAD ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AUTHORITY, OR WHAT WAS THE THINKING THERE? EXACTLY.
THE ORDINANCE SAYS THE DEFINITION OF CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION, I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE DEFINITION PORTION, IS THAT IT'S, IT SOMETHING ISSUED BY THE HAHC.
[00:30:01]
SO BECAUSE IT'S A CFR, NOT A CFA, THERE IS NO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR A CFR.THAT'S JUST NOT A POSSIBLE COURSE.
SO YOU WOULDN'T BE FACED WITH MAKING ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR A CFR 'CAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
BUT THE COMMISSIONER HELLIER WAS SAID, I THINK THE FIRST PART, IF THE PERSON WERE TO REMOVE THE TOP AND THEN CUT, AND SO THEN IT'S BACK TO ITS ADJUSTED, ITS GARAGE, THEY'RE BACK IN LINE, THEY'RE BACK IN COMPLIANCE.
THEY HAVE THE TOP, IT'S, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.
AND THEN THEY CAME FORWARD AND APPLIED AGAIN TO DO, APPLY, APPLIED TO DO THIS.
THE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT YOU, YOU UNDERSTOOD.
I MEAN, THAT'S, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'D STILL BE A, A C OF R AT THAT POINT.
UH, IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
UM, I I JUST DIFFER A LITTLE BIT WITH WHAT I THINK HAPPENED WITH HHC AND THE APPEALS BOARD, BOTH, I THINK IN YOUR COMMENTS TO HHC AND THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL, THEY SAID THAT THIS BOARD HAD NO PROBLEM WITH IT EXCEPT FOR PERMITTING.
AND THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
I MEAN, IT WAS, WE AFFIRMED THE DENIAL OF THE C OF A, AND IN THE CONTEXT OF DENYING THAT, UH, A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES WITH THE PROJECT AS PRESENTED WERE, WERE BROUGHT UP.
I DON'T THINK THAT WAS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN, UH, TAKEN AS IF ALL THOSE THINGS WERE DONE, THEN WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.
THAT'S JUST A MISCHARACTERIZATION.
ALL WE DID WAS AFFIRM THE DENIAL OF THE, THE C OF A.
AND WE DISCUSSED IT, YOU KNOW, IN THE CONTEXT, LIKE IT'S, IT'S HAD OTHER PROBLEMS WHY YOU WOULD WANNA DENY THE C OF A BECAUSE IT'S GOT PERMITTING ISSUES.
I'M GLAD THOSE WERE ADDRESSED, AND WE CERTAINLY SUGGESTED THAT, UM, INSTEAD OF APPROVING THIS, THIS, I THINK THE C OF R OF THE, AT THE TIME WAS REMOVE IT.
THAT WAS WHAT THE HHC HAD TOLD 'EM TO DO.
OR MAYBE THEY DIDN'T ACT ON IT, BUT THAT WAS BASICALLY THEIR ONLY REMEDY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE SUGGESTED, AND HE FOLLOWED UP VERY ABLY AS YOU HAVE IN COMING UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN THAT YOU ALL SUPPORTED.
SO, BUT, UH, THAT WE DID NOT SIGN OFF ON ANY OTHER VERSION OF IT.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE SEEING, UH, THE PROPOSED REMEDIATION PLAN.
I HAVE A QUESTION, ROMAN, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, HAS THE ROOF PITCH BEEN LOWERED? NO.
IS THE DOOR ON THE SECOND STORY THERE? I PRES.
IT IS THERE AND, AND THERE IS NO HIP ROOF FRAMING ON THE FRONT FACADE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS, ON THIS, UH, AGENDA ITEM.
NO QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW, BUT MAY WANT TO ASK ROMAN A QUESTION AFTER WE HEAR FROM THE OTHER SPEAKERS.
I'M GONNA CALL THE SPEAKERS IN THE ORDER OF WHICH I RECEIVED THE PAPERWORK.
UH, THE FIRST PERSON THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS WAS, UH, THADDEUS HERRICK AT, UH, 8 0 7 WOODLAND STREET.
IF YOU COULD COME UP, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE SPEAKER.
I LIVE AT EIGHT 15 WOODLAND, UM, WRIGHT, UH, DIRECTLY TO THE WEST.
I GUESS THAT IS OF THE, OF THE HOMEOWNER OF 8 0 7.
THANK YOU GUYS FOR WHAT YOU DO.
UM, WE'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, FOR, UH, SINCE 2000.
AND SO WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF CHANGE AND SOME, A LOT OF POSITIVE CHANGE, PARTICULARLY WITH LOT SIZE APPLICATION AND HISTORIC DESIGNATION.
UM, OUR, MY BIGGEST ISSUE, I, I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT I, I WANT TO RAISE AND I'VE RAISED BEFORE IS, YOU KNOW, MY, MY FEELING IS THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY NARROW DRIVEWAY AND BECAUSE IT, UH, THE BUILDING SITS, UH, A A APPROXIMATELY SORT OF IN THE HALFWAY POINT DOWN THE DRIVEWAY, UM, IT, IT FEELS HISTORICALLY INCONSISTENT TO ME, CERTAINLY FOR THE BLOCK, BUT I THINK FOR THE LARGER NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, THE ADDED SECOND, THE, I WAS NOT A, A, A BIG FAN OF THE INITIAL GARAGE THERE, ALTHOUGH I THOUGHT THE RESTORATION WAS GOOD.
IT, THERE'S A LOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE BACK, BUT IT, IT DE DEFINITELY MAINTAINED THE FRONT.
UM, AND, AND IT'S A, IT'S A SUITE HOUSE.
UM, THE, THE ISSUE IS THAT YOU HAVE, UH, BASICALLY A VERY NARROW BUILDING THAT GOES UP QUITE SOME HEIGHT.
AND, UM, AND, AND THE VIEW TO, TO MY, UH, THE, THE SPATIAL, UH, AS, AS, AS ROMAN WAS TALKING ABOUT, SORT OF SPATIAL INTEGRITY SEEMS COMPROMISED TO ME.
IT, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE TWO SHIPPING CONTAINERS STACKED ON EACH OTHER.
UM, AND OF COURSE I SEE IT, YOU KNOW, FROM THE SIDE, BUT YOU CAN ALSO SEE IT FROM THE SIDE WALKING DOWN
[00:35:01]
THE STREET, UM, UH, TOWARD THE, UM, I GUESS THAT, THAT WOULD BE TOWARD THE, THE EAST.UM, UH, I, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT IT CREATES, UH, IT, IT CREATES AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT FOR MY, FOR MY YARD AND FOR MY HOUSE.
AND I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, DON'T WANT TO BE ENTIRELY NIMBY ON THIS, BUT IT DOES.
I MEAN, WE'VE, WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME, UM, CREATING AN OUTDOOR SPACE AND GARDENS AND, UM, AND, AND WITH THIS BECOME, THERE'S A HUGE WALL, UH, SORT OF STARING IN OUR FACE.
THERE'S VERY LITTLE SPACE BETWEEN THAT BUILDING AND OUR PROPERTY.
CERTAINLY THAT BUILDING AND OUR GARAGE APARTMENT, WHICH WE DID NOT BUILD.
UM, BUT THERE'S ALSO, IT, IT'S, IT'S VERY CRAMPING.
UM, IN 8 0 7 ITSELF, IT CREATES, UH, A KIND OF A JUMBLE OF, OF, OF, OF BUILDINGS, AT LEAST LOOKING SORT OF FROM THE FRONT OR FROM THE SIDE WALKING EAST.
UM, I'D ALSO SAY, UH, IT, IT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS BUILT ENTIRELY WITHOUT PERMITS OVER THE COURSE OF A WEEKEND.
AND, YOU KNOW, TO ME, I MEAN, IT IS WHAT IT IS, BUT, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S HOW WE WANT OUR HISTORIC ZONES TO BE TREATED.
UM, I MEAN, THESE, THESE SHOULD BE PROJECTS THAT ARE DELIBERATED AND DISCUSSED.
UM, AND THAT TO ME FELT, UM, LIKE, LIKE THERE WAS SOMETHING, UM, AMISS ON IT A A COUPLE POINTS, AND I'LL, AND I'LL CLOSE OUT, UM, THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORS.
I MEAN, IT'S A LITTLE LIKE, TO ME, I, I DON'T THINK NEIGHBORS BEING PUT IN THAT POSITION ARE GOING TO, TO WANT TO CREATE THE CONFLICT OF SAYING NO.
IN OTHER WORDS, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE LIKE SAYING, UM, BECAUSE SOMEBODY BOUGHT THIN MINTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY LIKE GIRL SCOUT COOKIES.
I MEAN, PEOPLE GENERALLY ARE NICE AND I THINK THE ACCOMMODATING.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S QUANTITATIVELY OR QUANTIT QUALITATIVELY VERY GOOD DATA.
UM, SECONDLY, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, UH, WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, LOWERING CARBON EMISSIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS, UM, PROJECT.
AND I, I'M ALL FOR LOWER CARBON AND I'M ALL FOR A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT, AND I BELIEVE CLIMATE CHANGE EXISTS.
BUT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT HAS ANY SORT OF, UH, OF PLACE IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT A HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
UM, IT, YOU KNOW, IT JUST TO, TO SUM UP, UM, UH, I, I, I REALLY FEEL THIS IS ABOUT A BUILDING, UM, THAT, THAT DOES NOT FEEL HISTORICALLY COMPATIBLE.
UH, THAT, THAT, UM, THAT IS, IS, UH, THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW EXAMPLES OF IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, AND I WILL SAY LASTLY IN, IN HOUSTON, AND CERTAINLY EVEN JUST A BLOCK TO THE WEST OF JULIAN, YOU CAN DO PRETTY MUCH WHATEVER YOU WANT ON YOUR PROPERTY.
UM, THERE'S NOTHING HOLDING YOU BACK.
AND FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, HOUSTON'S A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN DO KIND OF WHAT YOU WANT IN MOST PLACES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SMALL HISTORIC, UH, UH, DISTRICT, RIGHT? THAT'S TRYING ITS BEST TO SORT OF MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
AND I, I THINK HONESTLY, THIS BUILDING FLIES IN THE FACE OF THAT.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER.
MR. HEARTH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY.
APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN HERE.
UH, HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED AT EIGHT 15? WE MOVED, UH, WE MOVED HERE IN 2000.
UH, WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, WAS THAT GARAGE APARTMENT ALREADY? THERE WAS OUR, OUR GARAGE APARTMENT, YES.
AND DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW CLOSE THAT GARAGE APARTMENT IS TO YOUR PROPERTY LINE? TO OUR PROPERTY LINE? YES.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? IT'S, I, I THINK IT'S, UM, THERE IS, THE PROPERTY LINE ACTUALLY EXTENDS INTO OUR NEIGHBOR'S YARD.
UM, SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS, WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON.
I THINK THE HOUSE, UH, TO OUR WEST, THEIR PROPERTY LINE EXTENDS INTO OUR YARD.
SO, SO IT'S A, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE, WHAT, WHAT THE, UM, THE MEASUREMENT IS, BUT IT'S, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOME OF OUR PROPERTY THAT IS SORT OF JUST SEATED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SILLY TO TRY TO BUILD A FENCE, YOU KNOW? DO YOU BELIEVE IT'S LESS THAN FIVE FEET? I, IT COULD BE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. HARRICK? UH, THANK YOU, SIR.
UM, THE SECOND PERSON THAT HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM ONE AT 8 0 7 WOODLAND STREET IS THE OWNER, UM, JAKE, IS IT BEAM OR BO? BOOM.
[00:40:01]
WOODLAND STREET.UM, A COUPLE ITEMS THAT, THAT, UM, I, I DO WANT TO BRING UP.
AND, UH, MR. ELLIOTT, I, I APOLOGIZE IF I, IF I STATED MY LETTER THAT I THOUGHT YOU GUYS APPROVED IT, THAT THAT WASN'T MY INTENTION, I WAS JUST TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THE FOUR ITEMS THAT YOU GUYS DID BRING UP TO BRING IT INTO CODE.
UM, IT IS IN THE PERMIT PROCESS.
THEY SAID THAT IT WOULD BE APPROVED AS LONG AS WE GET THE C OF R AND I PAY THE TAP FEES.
I HAVEN'T PAID THE TAP FEES YET, JUST BECAUSE
UM, ALSO, UH, MR. ADMINISTER, UM, BASED ON MY PLOT OF SURVEY, THE NEIGHBOR'S GARAGE IS WELL UNDER THREE FEET FROM OUR PROPERTY WITH AN AIR CONDITIONER THAT, THAT PUSHES OVER, THAT'S MAKES IT, YOU KNOW, CLOSE A FOOT TO FOOT AND A HALF FROM THE PROPERTY FROM THAT AIR CONDITIONER.
UM, SO THIS, OUR GARAGE WOULD BE THREE FOOT THREE INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS WITHIN THE THREE FOOT EASEMENT.
UM, AND, UH, I, I WAS KIND OF FOLLOWING WHAT, WHAT YOU GUYS WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER.
UM, IF WE TOOK THE GARAGE ADDITION OFF, BUILT IT BACK TO WHERE IT WAS, AND THEN WENT BACK IN FOR C OF A, THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL WOULD'VE BEEN FINE, BUT BECAUSE WE DID IT WITHOUT A PERMIT, THEN IT WENT INTO HHC.
SO I GUESS WHAT WE COULD DO IS REMOVE IT, GO IN FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, AND THEN REBUILD IT.
UM, I, I'M, I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW THAT METHODOLOGY, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE, WHAT, WHAT YOU WERE ASKING, BUT, UM, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I, WHAT I UNDERSTOOD AT LEAST.
UM, ALSO, I, I REALLY DISAGREE WITH THE SUPPORT OF ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS.
UM, I DISCUSSED THIS WITH THEM BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION HAPPENED.
UM, I EVEN DISCUSSED IT WITH, UH, THE EIGHT 15 WOODLAND HEIGHTS NEIGHBOR'S WIFE.
UM, EVERYONE GAVE US A VERBAL SUPPORT.
UH, THEY HAD NO ISSUE, AND THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORS STILL DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES.
UM, THEY THINK IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT FINE, INCLUDING THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND US AT 8 0 8 BAYLAND, WHO ALSO HAS A GARAGE THAT'S IN THE MIDPOINT OF THEIR NEIGHBOR OR MIDPOINT OF THEIR HOME.
UM, IT, THEY ALSO HAVE A LARGE POOL IN THE BACKYARD, SO, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR DECK THERE AND THEIR POOL, IT'S REALLY NICE TO HAVE THAT INTERACTION WITH THAT NEIGHBOR.
UM, SO I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU GUYS FOR, FOR HEARING THIS.
UM, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE READING THROUGH THE MINUTES.
AND I THOUGHT THERE WAS A COMMENT YOU'D MADE AT, I GUESS, AT THE MAY MEETING, COMMISSION MEETING ABOUT YOU'VE BEEN FINED CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY.
TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.
'CAUSE THAT'S BEEN A, I HAVEN'T BEEN SERVED ON THE COMMISSION FOR EIGHT YEARS BEFORE GETTING ON THIS.
THERE'S ALWAYS A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT ANY KIND OF PUNITIVE MEASURES THAT COULD BE TAKEN.
SO TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BASIS OF THESE FINES AND WHO ASSESSED THEM.
SO THE FINES CAME FROM, UM, WAS IT NO, FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTORS.
UH, THEY RED TAGGED THE HOUSE.
I'VE BEEN GOING TO COURT EVERY THREE MONTHS FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF NOW.
UH, JUST EXTENDING, EXTENDING, EXTENDING UNTIL WE GET A FINAL, UM, DETERMINATION OF WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
BUT, UH, AS THOSE GO ON, THE FINES CONTINUE TO GO UP.
UM, RIGHT NOW THE FINE IS $2,800, UM, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE AN ADDITIONAL, UH, FEE ON THE PERMIT.
ONCE YOU GET A PERMIT, YOU THEN HAVE TO PAY A FEE IF IT WAS FOR WORK, NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
UM, I BELIEVE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS GONNA BE.
UM, BUT ONCE, ONCE IN, HOPEFULLY WE GET THE CR C OF R, THEN THOSE PERMIT COSTS WILL, WILL COME TO FRUITION.
SO I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE RIGHT NOW.
AND YOU WERE CORRECT ABOUT WHAT MY POINT WAS EARLIER THAT TEAR THE SECOND FLOOR OFF, PUT THE ROOF BACK, MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE BUILT, WOULD MEET THE CRITERIA FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, GET APPROVED, AND THEN BILL BACK EXACTLY WHAT, UH, AND AND I, AS A CONTRACTOR, I DO, AND I TRY TO FOLLOW THE LETTER OF A LAW AS MUCH AS
UM, THAT'S NOT THE CASE FOR EVERYBODY IN MY PROFESSION, AND SOME JUST DON'T KNOW.
UM, BUT OTHERS DO IT INTENTIONALLY, AND I'M NOT GONNA DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS OF WHAT I THINK HAPPENED IN THIS INSTANCE.
BUT, UH, ANYWAY, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OVERLY PUNITIVE TO IMPOSE THIS AND I GUESS THESE FINES THEN JUST GO ON AND DEFINITELY
[00:45:01]
MR. CHAIR, I CAN ADD SOME CLARITY ABOUT THE FINES AS WELL.
SO WHEN THERE'S A VIOLATION OF THE BUILDING CODE, THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE CAN ASSESS A FEE OF IT UP TO, I BELIEVE IT'S $500 A DAY FOR EVERY DAY OF VIOLATION.
UM, IT'S UP WITH, IT'S TO THE DISCRETION OF, OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE.
THE, UH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ASSESS ANY ADDITIONAL FINES OR PENALTIES.
UM, AND THEN THERE IS, AS NOTED BY MR. B, THE, UH, UH, ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR SECURING THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR AS-BUILT.
I BELIEVE IT'S THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING PERMIT, WHATEVER THAT WAS.
SO I BELIEVE THAT'S STILL THE AMOUNT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTION, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. UH, BO? THANK YOU, SIR.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER OR ANY MOTIONS ON THIS MATTER? I'LL SAY I THINK I'M OF THE MIND THAT WE WOULD APPROVE A CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION.
UM, I THINK AT THIS POINT WE'VE EXHAUSTED THE POSSIBLE STEPS MOVING FORWARD, APART FROM HAVING HIM REMOVE THE ADDITION.
AND IF IT WOULD HAVE MET THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS, THEN IT DOES SEEM TO BE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE HISTORIC ELEMENTS NEED TO BE.
UM, I DON'T, I, I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH IT.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NORMALLY SEE WHAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA ARE.
MY IMPRESSION WAS THAT THERE'S SOME DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE PRESERVATION OFFICER AND FOR ISSUES THAT HE THINKS MIGHT BE CONTENTIOUS, HE'S GOT THE OPTION TO TAKE HIM TO THE HHC.
IS THAT HOW THAT WORKS? I'M NOT SURE WHAT EXACTLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL WOULD'VE BEEN FOR THIS, BUT I THINK YOU ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT NOW THAT IT'S BEEN, UH, DENIED AND KICKED AROUND A LOT, IT MIGHT MAKE YOU RETHINK IT.
'CAUSE I THINK THIS IS WHAT'S CONSIDERED ATYPICAL IN A COUPLE WAYS OF WHAT PROBABLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA WERE, WERE WRITTEN FOR THE CRITERIA ON IN YOUR REPORT HERE IS IN FACT THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA HERE WHERE IT SAYS APPROVAL.
SO ALTERATIONS TO NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES UNDER SECTION 33, 2 41 1 B, IT SAYS, THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE A C OF A FOR THE ALTERATION REHABILITATION RESTORATION OF A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE OR ADDITION TO A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE UPON FINDING THAT IT MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS APPLICABLE.
AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS, NUMBER ONE THERE SAYS, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO REMOVE OR DESTROY MORE THAN 67% OF THE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS, THEN YOU NEED JUST TO MEET A AND B HERE.
THE ACTIVITY MUST RECOGNIZE THE BUILDING IS OUR OWN TIME AND, UH, IN THE CONTEXT HERE.
AND THEN NUMBER TWO IS, IF YOU'RE, IF WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO IS GONNA TAKE AWAY MORE THAN 67% OF THE STRUCTURAL, UH, MEMBERS OF THE STRUCTURE, THEN IT'S CONSIDERED UNDER NEW CONSTRUCTION BY THE HHC AND THEN FOR AN ADDITION TO A NON-ENDING STRUCTURE, WE GET TO THIS ONE.
SO THAT'S, THAT IS THE SAME CRITERIA TO ANSWER THAT PART.
AND THEN THE SECOND PART, UM, YOU'RE RIGHT.
I MEAN, THAT'S, UH, OF COURSE YOU'RE THAT, AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, IF, UH, BEFORE THIS APPLICATION AND WHAT HAS ALL GONE ON OVER THIS APPLICATION, TO ME, I WOULD'VE APPLIED IT AND READ IT AND SAID THREE A AND THREE B, IT APPEARS TO MEET THEM.
TO ME, IT'S NOT DESTRUCTIVE, UM, TO THE CONTEXT AREA WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO, TO MR. HERRICK, THE APPLICANT NEXT, OR THE OWNER NEXT DOOR.
UM, I MEAN, I CAN, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S REALLY GETS DOWN TO THE NUB OF IT.
'CAUSE THE HHC SAID IN A COUPLE TIMES, IT, THAT'S A TALL, SLENDER, UH, APPEARANCE OF IT AND THE LOCATION FORWARD ON THE LOT RELATIVELY TO OTHER GARAGES THAT REALLY MADE THE ISSUE.
AND I THINK THEY WOULD SAY IT WAS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE TYPICAL PROPORTIONS, UH, AND SCALE.
AND SO, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S EXACTLY, IT'S, IT'S DIFFERENT.
AND, AND I I, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING UP THE, UH, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S GUIDELINES, AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER HAD ANYONE REFER TO THE VENICE
[00:50:01]
CHARTER BEFORE, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.BUT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, IT DOES ULTIMATELY, THERE IS A JUDGMENT IN, IN PLAY AND YOU DID FOCUS ON, YOU KNOW, DESTROY THE CHARACTER.
BUT I THINK THERE IS ALSO WHETHER OR NOT IT SIGNIFICANTLY EFFECTS.
AND SO, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST A, A, A QUESTION OF JUDGMENT.
UH, AND, AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF SUBJECTIVITY AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THE HHC SAW IT A PARTICULAR WAY.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF, AS YOU SAY, YOU'D LOOK AT IT THE SAME AND SAY, WELL, MAYBE THEY'VE GOT A POINT ABOUT TYPICAL PROPORTIONS, OR MAYBE YOU WANNA STICK TO YOUR GUNS AND ASSERT YOUR PREROGATIVE AND AUTHORITY AS DIRECTOR.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME UP LATER.
I GUESS I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS APPLICATION DOES MEET THE CRITERIA OF THREE A AND THREE B, AND FURTHERMORE THAT THIS BODY SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF THE CFA, BUT RATHER SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REMEDIATION.
WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS ON THE, SO I WOULD ASK, UH, MS. BLAND IF YOU, UH, TO CLARIFY WHAT MR. EDM MINSTER'S MOTION THAT WAS MOTION.
WAIT, YOU MADE A, I DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION.
SHE DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION? NO, NO.
JUST STATING, STATING MY OPINION ON THE MATTER.
I I WILL SECOND, UH, DIRECTOR EDM MINSTER'S MOTION.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION OF MR. EDM MINSTER.
UH, ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO THE MOTION? ELLIOT OPPOSED? BARTELL OPPOSED.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM TWO, CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON MAY 9TH, 2024.
FOR CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS FOR 4 4 3 COLUMBIA STREET IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS, SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE APPEALS BOARD.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON JASON LIAL.
TODAY I PRESENT TO YOU CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON 4 4 3 COLUMBIA STREET.
UH, PROJECT SUMMARY, IF YOU WILL, OR PROJECTS, UH, TIMELINE.
WELL, LET ME JUST KIND OF SAY AT LEAST WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WINDOWS, RIGHT? THIS IS A NICE CHANGE OF PACE.
UH, THE APPLICANT DID APPLY FOR A REAR EDITION JANUARY 24TH, 2020.
THIS WAS APPROVED BY COMMISSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AT THAT TIME.
OF COURSE, THIS WAS 2022 MONTHS LATER, WE HIT COVID.
THE UH, APPLICANT DID NOT PULL ANY PERMITS AND THE COA EXPIRED.
THE APPLICANT CAME BACK ON FEBRUARY 1ST AND APPLIED FOR THE SAME REAR EDITION WITH NO CHANGES TO WHAT THEY APPLIED FOR IN 2020.
GIVEN THAT I HAD BEEN NOW SERVING WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE MINDS OF THE COMMISSION, UH, WHAT HE SUBMITTED ON FEBRUARY 21ST, I SAID, MAKE SOME CHANGES AS MORE QUALITATIVE.
THAT NOTED HERE, UH, IN WHICH THE APPLICANT DID MAKE WAS CHANGE THE FRONT FACING TO A HIP ROOF, UH, CHANGE FROM FIXED CASEMENT WINDOWS TO A DOUBLE HUNG AND INCREASING THIS AT LENGTH ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION IN ORDER TO MEET THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS.
MARCH 14TH, THE ITEM WAS PRESENTED, IT WAS DISCUSSED AND COMMISSION DECIDED TO DEFER AWAITING FOR THERE BE ANY CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED REAR EDITION.
APPLICANT, UH, DID NOT WANNA MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE MASSING THAT WOULD BE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OVER THE OPEN PORCH.
SO HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT HE WANTED TO STICK TO THAT.
WE PRESENTED AGAIN ON MAY 9TH.
UH, HE DID MAKE SOME CHANGES, BUT IT WAS MORE TO THE FENESTRATION PATTERNS ON THE SOUTH AND THE REAR ELEVATION.
SO ON MAY 9TH COMMISSION DEBATED THIS AND DISCUSSED IT AND THEY DECIDED TO DENY IT.
AND THAT WAS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS, THAT WAS NOT MEETING CRITERIA 10 IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES.
THIS WAS ABOUT THE MASSING BEING OUT OF SCALE AND ALSO TOO IT WAS NOT MEETING THE QUALITATIVE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN SECTION SIX OF THE HOUSTON HEIGHT DESIGN GUIDELINES.
A POINT I HAVE INCLUDED SECTION SIX IN YOUR PACKET, IF YOU WANNA GO OVER THAT.
ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO MENTION ABOUT SECTION SIX, IF YOU GO DOWN A COUPLE OF PAGES, THERE ARE MASSING MODELS.
THESE WERE THE MASSING MODELS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS
[00:55:01]
OF GETTING THESE DESIGN GUIDELINES.AS WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM THOSE WHO WERE IN THAT PROCESS BACK IN 20 16 20 17.
THE FAR WERE BASED ON THESE MASSING MODELS.
AND NONE OF THESE MASSING MODELS HAVE ANYTHING THAT SET, THAT SHOWS CONDITION SPACE ABOVE AN OPEN PORCH.
AND SO THIS IS WHAT THE PUBLIC SAW.
NOW COME TO 2022 WHEN ALL THIS STARTED TO COME DOWN.
IT STARTED WITH 8 0 7 ARLINGTON, WHICH I HAVE PUT IN YOUR, UM, PACKET WHERE IT SAYS PROJECT SINCE 2022 VERSUS CONDITION SPACE ABOVE AN OPEN PORCH.
8 0 7 ARLINGTON GOT THE BALL ROLLING ON THIS.
UH, MY COLLEAGUE, YASMINE ARSLAN HAD PRESENTED ON THIS AND COMMISSIONED, SAW THIS, AND IT WAS A HUGE CONDITION SPACE OVER A VERY LARGE OPEN PORCH.
I WAS UP NEXT I HAD 18 0 0 9 COLUMBIA IS THE SAME THING.
BUT ONCE WE HAD LEARNED THAT COMMISSION WAS NOT GOING TO GO WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS ATYPICAL, WHERE WE'RE DOING CONDITION SPACE ABOVE OPEN PORCH, WHERE PORCHES ARE MORE TACKED TO THE SIDE OF THE MASSING, NOT OVER IT, THAT IS SOMETHING YOU DO MORE TO THE BAY AREA, NOT THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS, THAT'S NOT THE CONTEXT AREA.
STAFF STARTED WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO EITHER REDUCE THE CONDITIONS BASED ON ABOVE AN OPEN PORCH TO MORE OF A TYPICAL PORCH DIMENSION OR JUST TRY TO FIND OR WORK WITH THE AGENTS AND DESIGNERS TO FIND A MORE, UH, A SOLUTION TO IT.
SO YOUR PACKET, I PULLED TOGETHER ALL THOSE PROJECTS WE HAD BEEN SEEING SINCE 2022.
I TRIED THE BEST I COULD TO PUT YOUR PACKET WHERE YOU COULD SEE STAFF REVIEWED.
THE CHANGES WERE MADE, I PUT IN GREEN WHERE IT GOT FINALLY APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE COULD SEE WHERE WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH TRYING TO GET IT TO WHERE THERE WOULD BE MORE, UH, AN ACCEPTABLE, UH, CONDITIONS SPACE OF AN OPEN PORCH.
THERE ARE SOME, THEY'RE KIND OF CAN LEVER, CAN'T LEVER OVER, BUT IT DOES NOT EXTEND FAR OUT.
THERE'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, THE MASSING, THE MASSING PER THE DESIGN GUIDELINES IS THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE PUMPED UP REALLY A THE MASSING SHOULD BE IN A WAY THAT IS BROKEN UP.
SO IT REDUCES THE PERCEIVED MASS AND SCALE OF ADDITIONS ON THESE HISTORICAL COLUMNS.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS NOTED ABOUT PORCHES.
PORCHES HELP REDUCE THE PERCEIVED MASS AND SCALE, BUT WHEN YOU PUT MASS IN ABOVE A PORCH, IT'S NOT REDUCING THE MASS MASSING SCALE IS PUMPING UP THE MASSING AND PUMPING UP THE SCALE OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THESE DISTRICTS OR ON THESE HOMES.
SO WITH THAT, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS, WHY DID IT DO THAT? I'LL LEAVE THE COMMENTS AND THE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT APPLIED.
THE COMMISSION DENIED THE APPLICANT'S, UH, PROPOSAL BASED ON CRITERIA 10 HOUSTON HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES.
THE APPLICANT, VALERIE AND NADIA COSTELLO ARE HERE IN ATTENDANCE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND THEN PROBABLY MORE LATER, BUT JUST WANT TO CONFIRM, I'M LOOKING AT THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH MEETING AND, UH, COMMISSIONER MCNEIL HAD ASKED ON THE SUBJECT OF, UM, FLOOR AREA RATIO FAR, AND YOU REPLIED THAT CALCULATING THE FAR AND MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE CALCULATIONS, IT'S NOT MEETING FAR.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THAT MEETING, IT DID MEET FAR.
SO THAT TAKING, WE'LL GET ONTO THE NEXT MEETING AND WHAT WAS CHANGED ABOUT THAT MM-HMM
BUT WAS IT DETERMINED OR NOT? BECAUSE IF IT MET IT IN 20 20, 20 20 AND IT'S THE SAME PLAN, IT MEETS IT IN 2024, NOTHING CHANGED IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES WITH RESPECT TO PHARE.
YEAH, BUT AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO IN 2022, WE STARTED SEEING THESE CHANGES.
ALL THIS STARTED IN JANUARY, 2022.
FEBRUARY CAME AROUND, STAFF KEPT DEBATING THIS.
IT WAS DETERMINED AMONG STAFF AND THE DIRECTOR THAT WHAT WE SHOULD START DOING IS IF IT'S GONNA BE CONDITION SPACE ABOVE AN ATYPICAL PORCH DIMENSION, THEN WHAT'S BELOW IT SHOULD NOW BE COUNTED INTO THE FAR AND I THERE IS ONE WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT WHEN IT DOES OCCUR.
AND THERE WAS A STAFF REPORT, I BELIEVE THAT WAS DONE IN MAY, 2022 ON THE FIRST PAGE.
UH, FORMER COLLEAGUE MADELINE MAYHAN DID NOTE THAT ON THE FIRST PAGE OF HER STAFF REPORT.
BUT EVEN THOUGH WHEN SHE COUNTED IT IN, IT MET THE FAR, BUT THAT'S BEEN THE POLICY THAT WE DID AT THAT TIME
[01:00:01]
BASED ON WE'RE GETTING NEW CIRCUMSTANCES.SO WE HAD TO HAVE A CHANGE IN POLICY REFLECTING THE CHANGES THAT ARE HAPPENING TWO YEARS AGO.
I WANNA ADDRESS A COUPLE THINGS.
FIRST, YOU MENTIONED ATYPICAL PORCH SIZES.
I'VE SEEN PORCHES THAT ARE THREE FOOT BY THREE FOOT AND PORCHES THAT HAVE 3, 4, 500 SQUARE FEET TO THEM.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE CONSTRUED AS AN ATYPICAL PORCH SIZE, PARTICULARLY ON THE BACK OF A HOUSE.
AND THEN SECONDLY, AS FAR AS THE STAFF INCLUDING THAT IN FAR, I'M GONNA READ FROM PAGE FIVE OF THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES WITH THE HEADING MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO, IT DEFINES THAT ENLIST WHAT IS TO BE INCLUDED, AND IT'S WHAT TO BE EXCLUDED.
AND UNDER THE EXCLUSION IT JUST SAYS, OPENED OR SCREENED IN PORCHES, UNCOVERED DECKS AND PATIOS.
SO INCLUDING THAT PORCH AND FAR IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
AND I SEE DECISIONS BEING MADE BY THE COMMISSION THAT ARE CHANGING OVER TIME AND, UH, GOING BACK TO THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS THAT ARE SUBJECTIVE AND ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND THE VERY BASIS FOR BEING OVERTURNED, IN MY OPINION.
I, UH, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT.
UH, UH, THE, UH, THE FAR AND THE DETAILED AND THE QUANTITATIVE NUMBERS IN THERE ARE BASED ON CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT THAT IS GONNA MEAN AND WHAT THAT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE.
AND I THINK THE ONLY, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLE RESPONSE TO PEOPLE, UH, EXPLOITING WHAT ARE ESSENTIALLY LOOPHOLES, WHICH, YOU KNOW, HISTORICALLY HAS HAPPENED WHEN WE TRY TO GET MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT DESIGN GUIDELINES IS PEOPLE WANT TO BUILD A LOT MORE, YOU KNOW, SPACE AND THEY FIND SOME WAY TO TECHNICALLY COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE AND, AND BUILD WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD.
AND A FEW THINGS GET THROUGH AND THEN WE REALIZE, OR THE HHC OR THE DEPARTMENT REALIZES THAT WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING BUILT IS NOT A REALLY KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR WHAT WAS INTENDED BY THE ORDINANCE.
AND SO EITHER INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE ADJUSTS, OR IN SOME CASES WE GO BACK AND CHANGE THE ORDINANCE.
SO, UM, I THINK WHAT WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS TOTALLY APPROPRIATE.
AND, UH, I'M, I'M SORRY THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION WAS CAUGHT BETWEEN THE CLOSING OF THE LOOPHOLE, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S, UH, ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS.
THEY'VE, THEY'VE, THEY'VE ARTICULATED QUITE WELL THE, THE, THE CHANGE THEY THINK IS NECESSARY TO KEEP IN THE, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO REPLY TO THAT.
I DON'T, I DON'T, I WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING ELSE.
I READ IN THE MINUTES THAT ONE OF THE BASIS FOR DENYING IT IS THAT SOMEBODY COULD COME ALONG IN THE FUTURE AND ENCLOSE THAT SPACE AND CONDITION IT, WHICH WOULD PUT IT OVER THE FAR LIMITS IF WE START MAKING DECISIONS TO PREVENT EVERY POSSIBLE THING THAT SOME PRESENT OR FUTURE HOMEOWNER COULD DO.
THEN HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, 6,600 SQUARE FOOT LOT IN THE HEIGHTS WITH A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE ON IT, WANTS TO BUILD A DETACHED GARAGE APARTMENT IN WHICH THE APARTMENT SIZE IS 400 SQUARE FEET IN THE GARAGE IS 520.
BUT, OH MY GOSH, SOMEBODY MAY ATTACH THAT IN THE FUTURE.
AND I THINK WE'RE MAKING THESE DECISIONS.
WE WANT TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY THE ORDINANCE AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES NOT SUBJECT TO SOMEBODY'S OPINION ON THINGS, BECAUSE WE WANT TO WIN SUPPORT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, NOT ALIENATE PEOPLE.
AND I'LL GET OFF MY SOAPBOX IN A MINUTE.
UM, BACK WHEN I WAS ON THE COMMISSION, I WENT TO A TREE PLANTING AT MARMION PARK THAT WAS DONE IN MEMORY OF A LONGTIME HEIGHTS MEMBER.
HIS FAMILY WAS HAVING THIS BIG MAGNOLIA TREE PLANTED.
I WAS INTRODUCED TO THAT FAMILY AS A COMMISSION MEMBER.
AND HER RESPONSE WAS, OH, I UNDERSTAND YOU GUYS AREN'T APPROVING ANYTHING ANYMORE.
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF PROJECTS ARE APPROVED, BUT THAT'S THE PERCEPTION, PARTICULARLY WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS.
AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO GAIN FAVOR TO GET ANY NEW DISTRICTS ADDED WITH THAT KIND OF REPUTATION.
UH, YOU HAVE SPOKEN, UH, TO A ATYPICAL PORCH.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO, I WAS GONNA ADDRESS THAT WHEN ROB HELLER BROUGHT IT UP, WHEN THERE'S LIKE A THREE BY THREE.
SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE, WHEN YOU DO, FRONT PORCHES SAYS IT SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET WIDTH, AND EIGHT DOES GOOD, BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE WHERE YOU CAN PUT UP THE POST.
SO WE'RE TALKING BETWEEN SIX TO NINE FEET IN WIDTH.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 11 TO 13 FEET IN LENGTH.
THAT WOULD BE YOUR TYPICAL PORCH.
NOW, ALSO, TO KEEP IN MIND, THE CONTEXT AREA IS ALWAYS BASED IN OUR CRITERIA AND MENTIONED IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
AND I'LL JUST READ TO HEAR TYPICAL EXISTING CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES ARE USED TO DETERMINE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROS
[01:05:01]
PROJECT, EXISTING CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES THAT ARE IN THIS BLOCK FACE ARE PARTIAL.
THEY'RE ONLY MAYBE A LITTLE BIT WIDER THAN HALF.
THEY DON'T GO THE FULL LENGTH.
THEY ARE ABOUT SIX TO EIGHT FEET, OR SIX NINE IN WIDTH, ABOUT NINE TO 13 IN LENGTH.
ALSO TO, IF YOU KEEP IN MIND THAT'S YOUR TYPICAL, AS THEY WERE BUILT OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, YOU DIDN'T SEE ATYPICAL PORCH DIMENSIONS THAT GO OUT TO 13 FEET, ONE INCH WIDTH AND RUNNING ABOUT 26 TO 29 IN LENGTH.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN MORE HAPPENING OVER THE DECADES FROM THE FIFTIES, SIXTIES AND ONWARDS.
BUT IF WE LOOK AT THE CONTEXT AREA AND THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE, A, UH, TYPICAL PORSCHE MENTIONS ARE A LOT SMALLER.
AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND WE'RE GONNA DO COMPATIBILITY TO THE CONSUMING STRUCTURES, THAT'S WHAT YOUR TYPICAL PORCH DIMENSION IS.
FOR MY OWN ED EDIFICATION, IS THAT WRITTEN INTO THE HEIGHTS GUIDELINES? IT'S PRETTY MUCH WRITTEN ALSO IN THE CRITERIA.
I'M ASKING ABOUT DIMENSIONS OF A PORCH.
IT IS ON YOUR, UH, FRONT PORCH DIMENSION WHEN WE DO THE MEASURE STANDARDS FROM PORCH DIMENSION.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE HEIGHTS THAT TALKS ABOUT REAR PORCH DIMENSIONS? UNFORTUNATELY NOT.
BUT IF WE TAKE A LITTLE BIT, STEP FURTHER, WHEN YOU SAY A PROPOSED PROJECT IN ADDITION SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE AND APPROPRIATE.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'VE ASKED.
WELL, I WAS ASKING, ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BY GETTING THERE.
I'M AN ENGINEER, SO YOU KNOW, I WORK WITH, YOU KNOW, NUMBERS AND THAT TYPE OF THING.
UH, THE OTHER THING THAT I'M LOOKING AT, JUST, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT THIS IS ON THE REAR, IS THIS PORCH VISIBLE FROM THE STREET? I WOULD SAY YES, BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE SAYS IT CAN BE EXEMPT IF IT'S OBSCURED BY THEIR ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'VE ASKED, BUT WHICH STREET IS IT? BUT IT IT WILL BE VISIBLE YES.
FROM OF THE FRONT AND THE SIDES, YES.
WHETHER FRONT OR TO THE SIDES, IT'S VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHTAWAY.
UM, CAN STAFF SHOW THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING TO ADDRESS MR. EDM MINSTER'S QUESTION AS PROPOSED TO THE QUESTION OF REAR VISIBILITY? I, I THINK IT'S REALLY A CRITICAL QUESTION.
UM, AND, AND IN THE, YOU KNOW, THE ALMOST FIVE YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE NOW, IT COMES UP A LOT BECAUSE SOMETHING THAT'S OBSCURED FROM VIEW, OBSCURED FROM VIEW FROM THE STREET IS EXEMPT FROM NEEDING A C OF A.
AND INITIALLY, I, WHEN I CAME TO THE OFFICE, I FELT LIKE THE DIRECTION WE WERE WAS THAT IF YOU COULD SEE IT AT ALL FROM THE STREET, WHICH SEEMS A VERY DIFFERENT WAY OF COURSE, OF READING THAT.
AND, UM, IN FACT, I'LL JUST STATE THAT AS I WAS ON THE BACK PORCH AND WHEN WE WERE FIRST MEETING WITH THIS APPLICANT PRIOR, I BELIEVE TO HIS REAPPLICATION.
SO WE WERE PROBABLY MEETING DURING COVID, BUT I'M NOT SURE.
THAT WAS MY FIRST NO STAND ON THE BACK PORCHES.
I COULDN'T SEE THE STREET REALLY WELL ON EITHER DIRECTION.
SO I THINK THAT'S, WE DON'T HAVE THAT IMAGE.
BUT THE QUESTION OF OBSCURED FROM VIEW DOES IS, IS A POINT, AND I ASKED THIS QUESTION IN SO MUCH THAT IN THE DRAWINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN, UH, THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE, I DON'T SEE IT.
AND THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT I'M MISSING HERE.
AND THE OTHER THING, I, I CAN SEE THE SECOND STORY, BUT I CAN'T SEE THE FOURTH STORY AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
AND COMMISSIONER, I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T SAY THE RESPONSE FROM, UH, CERTAIN PEOPLE COMMISSIONS OR, YOU KNOW, HHC AND MAYBE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE THAT.
AGAIN, IT GOES TO WHAT, UH, UH, MR. LILIENTHAL WAS SAYING IS THAT, UH, IT STILL COULD MAKE THE MASSING LARGER TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW, HOW BIG DOES THAT AREA GET WITH SOMETHING ABOVE IT BEFORE IT CROSSES A LINE.
I DON'T WANNA TRY TO ANSWER THAT.
AND THAT'S WHY WE, THAT, I'M TRYING NOT TO GO DOWN THE BUNNY TRAIL OF MASSING, BECAUSE THAT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE TO ME.
BUT EITHER YOU CAN SEE IT OR YOU CAN'T.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IT'S LIKE A YES OR A NO.
AND IT'S, UH, UH, ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION, ROMAN, IS, IS THIS ADDITION, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WAS ON THE REAR HALF OF THE LOT, OR PRI UH, DEFINITELY ON THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE OR REAR HALF OF THE STRUCTURE.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE, I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN.
CERTAINLY AT THE REAR HALF OF THE STRUCTURE.
IT'S, IT'S MAY NOT BE ENC CRUTCH, IT MAY NOT BE ENCROACHING AT, AT ALL ON THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL HISTORIC STRUCTURE, IF I, I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
UM, TO THAT END, WELL, WE WERE NOT THANK YOU.
WHY DON'T YOU COULD JUST STAY UP THERE A MINUTE, ROMAN.
'CAUSE I WANT TO ADDRESS THIS, UH, IDEA OF WHAT'S EXEMPT AND WHAT'S NOT MM-HMM
AND ALL THAT, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE
[01:10:01]
THAT I THINK WE NEED TO GET CLEAR IN THIS CASE.AND IN GENERAL, THE, UM, I MEAN THE, I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE DEFINITION.
UH, THERE ARE A COUPLE AREAS WHERE IT COULD BE APPLICABLE.
UH, ONE, YOU HAVE A DEFINITION OF EXTERIOR FEATURE IN THE 33 2 0 1, WHICH, UH, SAYS IT'S GOTTA BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET TO QUALIFY AS AN EXTERIOR FEATURE.
SO THERE'S ONE THING JUST DEFINITIONALLY, BUT THAT'S EXTERIOR FEATURE AS A, AS A TERM.
UH, THE TERM ALTERATION IS DEFINED IN 33 2 0 1 AS A CHANGE TO THE EXTERIOR OF, UH, A BUILDING OR OBJECT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT WOULD, WOULD QUALIFY.
UM, SO THEN, UM, 33 2 0 2, THE SCOPE OF THE ORDINANCE MAKES CLEAR THAT IT APPLIES TO ALTERATIONS, WHICH WOULD BE CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR MM-HMM
AND THEN WE HAVE PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.
UH, THERE'S, UH, 33 2, 36 B, WHICH APPLIES TO EXTERIOR FEATURES AND J WHICH APPLIES TO ALTERATIONS.
SO, UH, THE SCOPE COVERS, ALTERATIONS, CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR OF, OF BUILDINGS.
THERE IS EXEMPTION 33, 2 37, WHICH SAYS THAT, UM, IF, IF AN ALTERATION IS OBSCURED FROM VIEW BY THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, UM, THEN IT'S, IT'S EXEMPT.
THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T APPLY TO IT.
SO IT HAS TO BE OBS OBSCURED FROM VIEW BY THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
THE STRUCTURE IS CLEARLY NOT OBSCURED FROM VIEW, IT'S VISIBLE.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, THE EXEMPTIONS DON'T APPLY TO WHERE DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE ENFORCED AND WILL OVERRIDE THE EXEMPTIONS.
SO I, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.
AND THERE IS SORT OF A, A FLAVOR OF THE ORDINANCE THAT IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT, NONE OF OUR BUSINESS, BUT IT'S A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT.
AND IT WOULD JUST NEED TO BE TROD CAREFULLY ON THAT.
AND THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT, IT MATTERS BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS NOT REALLY WHETHER OR NOT THE PORCH IS COMPATIBLE OR IS A, A, A FEATURE THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IN, IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER.
THE QUESTION IS, HAVE THEY USED THE DESIGN OF THIS PORCH TO, IN, TO, UH, INFLATE THE MASSING OF, OF THE BUILDING BEYOND WHAT THE FAR GUIDELINES WERE, WERE WRITTEN TO ENCOMPASS? AND I THINK SO IT'S REALLY WHETHER OR NOT IT'S VISIBLE DOESN'T MATTER.
IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE USING A TECHNICAL WAY THEY'VE CONSTRUCTED THIS TO ACHIEVE A GREATER MASSING THAN WHAT THE FAR GUIDELINES WERE, WERE MEANT TO LIMIT.
SO, UM, JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, ABOUT THAT.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD BE REVIEWING OR PROPOSING A CHANGE, BUT IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, AREN'T YOU SUPPOSED TO ALSO HAVE THE BUILDING OFFSET FROM THE, THE EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE BUILDING? SO THERE IS THAT, UH, I HAD, WHEN HE SUBMITTED IN FEBRUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR, THE INSET AND THE INSET LENGTH WERE NOT MEETING THE AL CENTER.
'CAUSE THE RENDERING OF THE FRONT ALATION YOU JUST SHOWED, SHOWS THE SECOND FLOOR IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE SIDEWALLS OF THE FIRST OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE.
ALSO, TOO, BASED ON, ON THAT, ALSO TOO, I HAVE ON THE SCREEN, THIS IS, THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS A VERY SMALL, AND I NOTED ON THE 2024 STAFF REPORTS, WHICH WAS OMITTED IN THE 2020, THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WAS ONLY 780 SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN IN, I FOUND THROUGH IMS THE PERMIT IN 1998, A NON HISTORIC REAR ADDITION WAS AT FOR 851 SQUARE FEET.
SO WHERE HE PUT IN THAT INSET ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION IS WHERE HE HAD DEBRIS MET.
THAT MEASURABLE STANDARD, AS HE SAID, THE INSET LENGTH.
BUT I WANNA GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
THE EXEMPTION IS IF IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC, UH, PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OBSCURE BY THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, THIS ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS VERY SMALL.
AS I NOTED, IT'S 780 SQUARE FEET.
EVEN IF YOU LOOK AT THAT NON HISTORIC REAR ADDITION THAT WAS ADDED IN 1998, IT'S STILL VISIBLE.
AND OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, WE TAKE A, WE DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FENCING AND VEGETATION, MR. CHAIR, IF, IF YOU'RE DONE WITH MR. LILL LANDTHAL, I'M NOT.
UH, IS THE ONLY REASON THAT, UH, THE CRITERIA WAS NOT MET FOR THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, JUST THE FAR AND HOW IT WAS CALCULATED, THAT'S NOT REALLY THE BASIS.
THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION MM-HMM
SO ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THE FAR IS MOOT, THAT WE DON'T NEED TO BE CONSIDERING THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? I WOULD SAY THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA TO CONSIDER IS THE MASSING,
[01:15:01]
BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT.BUT ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE CAN OR CANNOT? YES OR NO? I'M JUST CURIOUS.
YOU CAN, ON THE FAR, IS THE FAR AN ISSUE WITH THIS APPLICATION? UH, I WOULD SAY YES.
AND IF I MAY ELABORATE ON THAT.
AGAIN, IN 2022 WHEN WE'RE GETTING ALL THESE PROJECTS COMING THROUGH, THROUGH STAFF DISCUSSIONS FROM JANUARY TO ABOUT MARCH OR APRIL, WE DECIDED AS A STAFF, WE'RE GONNA KEEP GETTING THESE PROJECTS ARE COMING THROUGH, THEN WE START, WE SHOULD START COUNTING THIS AS COUNTING TOWARDS THE FAR, BUT IT'S THE MASSING THAT IS COMING.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH AS THIS AROSE TWO YEARS AGO.
I, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND, UH, THE, UH, THE ARGUMENT THAT COMMISSIONER ELLIOT'S MAKING, THAT THIS IS ENABLE A MASSING TO BE PERHAPS LARGER THAN IF THE, LET'S SAY THE SO-CALLED PORCH WAS NOT, IT'S MORE DIMINUTIVE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DESIGNED.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME, BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD FROM COMMISSIONER HELLER, AND I'VE GOT A COPY OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ON THE CERTAIN PAGE, THAT IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE WRITTEN THAT THERE'S AN EXEMPTION FOR OPEN PORCHES.
AND I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY STAFF IS SAYING, WELL, NO, WAIT A MINUTE.
WE NEED TO PUT THIS INTO THE FAR CALCULATION WHEN, YOU KNOW, GROSS BUILDING AREA, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE JURISDICTION DOES HAVE EXEMPTIONS.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS AN EXEMPTION.
SO WHERE DID I GET TWISTED ON THIS? OKAY, SO TALKING ABOUT AN OPEN PORCH, REALLY THE DEFINITION OF O OF A PORCH IS THAT THERE'S NO MASSING ABOVE IT.
AGAIN, A PORCH IS ALWAYS TACKED ONTO THE SIDE OF A MASSING.
A PORCH WILL JUST HAVE A ROOF ABOVE IT.
OKAY, WELL THEN WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PORCH AND A DECK? WHAT YOU ARE DEFINING AS MORE A FREESTANDING ATTACHED PORCH, BUT PORCHES CAN BE CONSTRUCTED AS INSET INTO MASSING.
SO I THINK THERE'S JUST A CLARIFICATION ISSUE HERE A LITTLE BIT BETWEEN WHAT MR. EDMONDSON HAS AND HIS, WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
AND I KNOW THAT KIM WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.
I, I FEEL LIKE THE KID IN CLASS GOING, UM, I WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS.
AS, AS COMMISSIONER ELLIOT POINTED OUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE EXEMPTION LANGUAGE THAT'S NOT EXEMPT IF THERE ARE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS STAFF DID NOT MAKE AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS DECISION IN 2022 TO SAY, OH, OOPS, WE THINK WE OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.
THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ACTUALLY SAY WHAT IS INCLUDED AND EXCLUDED FROM, FROM THE FAR CALCULATIONS AS MR. HELLER NOTES.
FA IS CALCULATED BY DIVIDING THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF CONDITIONED AND UNCONDITION SPACE IN ELIGIBLE BUILDINGS BY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT.
WE, WE KNOW THAT MATH, UM, EXCLUDED ARE OPEN OR SCREENED IN PORCHES OR UNCOVERED DECKS OR PATIOS.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE STAFF GOT TO THE POINT OF SAYING, IF IT'S UNCOVERED, WE DON'T CARE.
BUT ONCE YOU'VE PUT THAT COVERING OVER IT, IT BECOMES PART OF THAT UNCONDITIONED SPACE THAT CAN BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE FAR CALCULATION.
IF YOU THINK BACK JUST WITH CHANGES IN STAFF AND SO FORTH, THAT IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT CHANGES GET MADE IN INTERPRETING AND LOOKING AT THAT.
SO TO, TO ME, THAT'S WHERE THAT, THAT CHANGE CAME FROM.
AND IF THIS WAS AN UNCOVERED PORCH, I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD'VE INCLUDED IT IN FAR, BUT I WANT TO, AND MAYBE I'M SPLITTING HAIRS, BUT STAFF DOESN'T CALL IT AN UNCOVERED DECK OR A COVERED DECK.
THEY'VE CALLED IT AN ATYPICAL PORCH.
YOU KNOW, SO IF IT'S, IT'S A PORCH OR A DECK AND, AND IF IT'S BEING CALLED A PORCH, THEN I THINK THAT EXCLUSION DOES APPLY TO IT.
UH, AND I MEAN, AND I DO WANNA ALSO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CHIME IN ON THE MASSING AND SCALE ISSUE.
'CAUSE EIGHT YEARS ON THE COMMISSION, AND EVERY YEAR SINCE THEN, IT JUST, IT'S, AND IT IS A VERY, UM, SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATION.
BUT I WAS ON THE COMMITTEE AS I THINK BOTH MRS. ELLIOT AND ADMINISTER WARREN 2015 WHEN WE REDRAFTED THE ORDINANCE,
[01:20:01]
WHICH ELIMINATED THE 90 DAY WAIVER.AND THEN FROM THAT POINT ON, THOSE FREQUENT APPLICANTS ARCHITECTS AND DESIGNERS WHO DO A LOT OF WORK IN THE HEIGHTS, PLEASE JUST TELL US WHAT CAN WE BUILD AND WE WILL BUILD IT.
WE JUST NEED DESIGN GUIDELINES.
SO I WAS INVOLVED IN SELECTING THE VENDOR WHO WROTE THOSE AS A PROPERTY OWNER IN HEIGHTS SOUTH.
I WENT TO THE WORKSHOPS, I READ, I DID THE SURVEYS THAT WERE TAKEN AND I READ, AND I THINK THEY DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF ADDRESSING WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE HEIGHTS SUPPORTED, AS WELL AS GETTING SOME KIND OF MEASURABLE STANDARDS.
YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO, UNLESS YOU COME UP WITH A THOUSAND DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE FROM A MASSING SCALE STANDPOINT, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO FULLY GET THERE.
AND IF THIS APPLICATION MEETS FAR LOT COVERAGE, EVE HEIGHT, RIDGE HEIGHT, ALL THOSE MEASURABLE STANDARDS, AGAIN, I THINK, OR WE CHANGED THE ORDINANCE, LIKE ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS SUGGESTED THAT OR CHANGED THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, EXCUSE ME, NOT THE ORDINANCE.
AS A FOLLOW UP TO WHAT COMMISSIONER HELLER IS SPEAKING TO THAT, BASED ON THE RESEARCH THAT I'VE DONE, THAT THE HEIGHTS ORDINANCE WAS, DESIGN GUIDELINES WERE PUT INTO PLACE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN, UH, I GUESS IT WAS 20 18, 20 19, SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA.
18, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE CALCULATION FOR FAR HAS NOT CHANGED.
SO THEREFORE THE 2020 INTERPRETATION OF THE HEIGHTS GUIDELINES SAID WE'RE GOOD.
AND NOW, AND, AND I'M SPEAKING TO COM, COMMISSIONER MCNEIL IN HIS TEST, YOU KNOW, UH, ON WHAT WAS IN THE MINUTES, KEPT GOING BACK, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE.
IT WAS OKAY IN 2020, BUT NOW IT'S NOT OKAY.
AND SO THAT'S SEEMS WHERE HAS JUST INTERPRETATION GONE INTO THAT SINCE 2020 FA MAY ADDRESS COMMISSIONER ED, MR. AND HELLER'S COMMENTS, THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT SECTION FIVE MEDICAL STANDARDS, QUANTITATIVE.
THAT'S WHY INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET SECTION SIX, QUALITATIVE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONS.
SO REMEMBER WE HAVE TO BALANCE BOTH.
IF IT MEETS MEASURABLE STANDARDS, WE CAN'T SAY, OH, IT PASSES THE MUSTARD.
WE ALSO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS THE QUALITATIVE STANDARDS.
AND THAT'S WHY I INCLUDE IT IN THE PACKET.
SO IF WE GO DOWN THE ROUTE THAT ONLY MEETS THE NUMBERS AND WE DO NOT TAKE ACCOUNT THE QUALITATIVE, THEN WE'RE KIND OF LEAVING OUT HALF THE PICTURE HERE WHEN WE DO OUR EVALUATION.
AND ALSO TOO, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT, UH, GOING TO COMMISSIONER CHAIRS BARTELL'S POINT THAT, UM, THERE CAN BE INCIDENT PORTIONS.
YES, THERE IS TWO LOCATIONS, 4 24 AND SIX 13, WHERE A NEW PORCH CAN BE INCLUDED AS A PART OF AN ADDITION, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PORCH HELPS TO REDUCE THE PERCEIVED MASS AND SCALE OF THE ADDITION.
AND THOSE ARE INSET INTO THE ADDITION.
IT'S PUSHING THE MASSING UP AND INCREASING THE SCALE OF IT.
SO THAT TOO IS IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN TWO LOCATIONS, I'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND IT MIGHT BE IN MORE LOCATIONS, BUT I FOUND IT IN TWO, UH, EDM ADMINSTER ASKED THE QUESTION ON THE REFERENCING THE FAR AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 20 WHEN IT WAS APPLIED FOR THE FIRST TIME AND NOW, AND HOW THAT'S CHANGED.
UM, YOU BROUGHT UP THAT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAT YOU'RE GO TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF THE CRITERIA YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
HAS THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND CHANGED SINCE 2020, WHEN YOU REFER TO THE SECOND, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE QUALITATIVE? YES.
I, YOU KNOW, I, UH, I THINK PEOPLE ARE PUTTING A LITTLE MORE TOO MUCH STOCK IN, IN PAST DECISIONS OR WHETHER OR NOT THE LANGUAGE HAS CHANGED.
IT'S COMPLETELY UNEXCEPTIONAL THAT INTERPRETATIONS EVOLVE.
I MEAN, THE CONSTITUTION HASN'T CHANGED IN 1796 OR SOMETHING.
I PROMISE, I PROMISE YOU THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THOSE PROVISIONS MEAN HAS CHANGED A LOT.
SO I MEAN, UH, THE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION WOULD BE REMISS.
STAFF WOULD BE REMISS IF THEIR INTERPRETATION DIDN'T EVOLVE TO ACTUALLY, UH, RESPOND TO WHAT PEOPLE WERE APPLYING FOR AND WHAT WAS GETTING BUILT.
SO I'M, I THINK THAT'S PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE.
COMMISSIONERS, MAY I, UH, GO OFF OF WHAT COMMISSIONER ELLIOT JUST SAID?
[01:25:02]
I JUST WANNA ADD TO HIS POINT.SO, UH, YES, IF ADMINISTER AND HELLER KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS ON SECTION FIVE IS THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS.
ON PAGE FIVE DASH FOUR, IT SAYS SOME ADDITIONS TO CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE HAC MIGHT NOT BE APPROVED TODAY.
EACH COA APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED BASED ON ITS OWN MERIT IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION.
AND THAT GOES TO SAYING THAT THE INTERPRETATION CHANGED OVER TIME.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS, UH, AGENDA ITEM.
UM, I'D LIKE TO CALL, LEMME PUT MY GLASSES ON.
UH, VALERIE COSTELLO SPEAKING ON I AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2 4 4 3 COLUMBIA STREET.
UH, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE MIC AS YOU APPROACH VALAIR COSTELLO.
UM, SO YES, I'M THE OWNER OF 4 4 3 COLUMBIA STREET.
UH, WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY BECAUSE WE HAD BEEN APPROVED IN 20 19, 20 20.
WE STARTED THE PROCESS IN 2019, THEN WE WERE UNABLE TO PROCEED BECAUSE OF COVID.
AND SO WE DELAYED, WE CAME BACK IN 2023, STARTED THE PROCESS AGAIN.
AND I WAS, UH, SURPRISED, DISAPPOINTED TO FIND OUT THAT THERE WAS INTERPRETATIONAL CHANGES.
SO, WELL, I CAN UNDERSTAND INTERPRETATION CAN HAPPEN OVER TIME AND PEOPLE'S OPINIONS ABOUT THINGS CAN CHANGE OVER TIME.
I WOULD'VE THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE MORE RESPECT FOR THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH IN 2019.
IT'S A VERY INVOLVED PROCESS AS YOU KNOW, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF DISCOVERY IN THAT PROCESS.
THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF ITERATIONS BACK AND FORTH WITH STAFF AND COMMISSION AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND WHAT WAS DONE AT THE TIME WAS DONE IN ALL GOOD FAITH AND HONESTY.
THERE WAS NO LOOKING TO GAME THE SYSTEM AT ALL.
THERE'S NO CONSIDERATION OF ALL, OH, YOU KNOW, IF WE COVER, IF WE GO OUT THIS WAY, WE, YOU KNOW, LATER WE CAN, NO, THERE'S NO THINKING OF IT.
WE CAN ENCLOSE ANYTHING OR WE CAN GAME THE SYSTEM.
IT WAS ALL, WE HAVE AN EXISTING HOUSE WITH AN EXISTING ADDITION.
WHAT CAN WE DO? WE NEED MORE SPACE.
'CAUSE WE HAVE CHILDREN THAT ARE GROWING UP.
SO WHAT CAN WE DO? SO WE TALK TO THE ARCHITECT AND WE SAY, WELL, YOU'RE LIMITED TO 2,900 SQUARE FEET.
WELL, WE HAVE 1600, SO THAT MEANS WE CAN GET ABOUT 1200 SQUARE FEET.
HOW DO WE GET 1200 SQUARE FEET? WELL, YOU PUT THIS ON TOP OF THE ADDITION AND YOU GO BACK A LITTLE BIT, THAT'S ALL YOU GET.
IT WAS NOTHING, THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION OF, OH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA MANIPULATE A PRO.
THERE WAS NO PROCESS TO MANIPULATE.
THAT WAS, WE WERE, I GUESS WE WERE MAYBE TRAILBLAZERS IN THAT REGARD.
IT'S NOT AN EGREGIOUS PROJECT.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT GOES BACK TO WITHIN FIVE OR 10 OR 15 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
IT CERTAINLY RESPECTS THE SETBACKS ON ALL SIDES.
AND IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET BY AND LARGE.
I MEAN, CERTAINLY THAT REAR PORTION IS NOT VISIBLE.
YOU COULD SEE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR SURE.
BUT WE, YOU KNOW, WE MADE CONSIDERATIONS TO HIP AND SO FORTH THAT WAS REQUESTED BY STAFF.
SO IT'S REALLY, I MEAN, I I I PUT A LOT OF REASONS WHY I THOUGHT THAT MAYBE, UM, THIS BOARD WOULD RECONSIDER H H'S DECISION, UH, THAT ARE OBJECTIVE ABOUT, THIS IS A VERY NON-CONTRIBUTING BLOCK, ONE OF THE LEAST NON, ONE OF THE LEAST CONTRIBUTING BLOCKS IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE HEIGHTS.
THERE'S A TOTAL OF FOUR HOMES THAT CONTRIBUTE.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS ARE LARGER SHOTGUN HOMES WITH ALL KINDS OF MASSING ISSUES.
SO, UM, BUT, BUT BY AND LARGE, I WOULD'VE THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE ECHOING A LITTLE BIT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE, THE POINT WAS MADE BY MR. HELLER OR MR. ADMINISTER, BUT THERE'S A FEELING OF RESISTANCE THAT I'M GETTING IN THIS PROCESS THAT I WOULD'VE THOUGHT THERE'D BE A LITTLE BIT MORE HELP THAT I WOULD BE GETTING RECOGNIZING, YOU KNOW WHAT, OKAY, OUR VIEWS HAVE CHANGED, BUT YOU WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND YOU SPENT A LOT OF MONEY TO GET THERE.
MAYBE WE SHOULD RESPECT THAT AND SAY, OKAY, THERE'S A BIT OF A GRANDFATHERING ELEMENT HERE BECAUSE YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
IF I WERE COMING TO YOU TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME WITH THIS PROJECT, I COULD UNDERSTAND, WELL, IF I WERE COMING WITH IN FRONT OF HHAC, I COULD UNDERSTAND THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, LISTEN, MAYBE SOME OF THESE PROJECTS GOT DONE IN THE PAST, BUT WE'RE NOT DOING THAT ANYMORE.
AND I, FRANKLY, I WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN TO THAT POINT WITH HHSC BECAUSE AN ARCHITECT WOULD'VE REDIRECTED ME BEFORE I EVEN GOT THERE.
[01:30:01]
OBJECTIONS WHEN I WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH MY ARCHITECT BEFORE.SO ANYWAY, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
I, I, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT I MENTIONED IN HERE IN THE, YOU KNOW, REASONS, THE FACT THAT IT'S BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, THE FACT THAT THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF, YOU KNOW, DISAGREEMENT ON THE HHSE, UH, COMMISSION ABOUT, ABOUT THE PROJECT.
SO THERE'S CERTAINLY A LACK OF CLARITY THERE.
I THINK THAT THE DESIGN GUIDELINES PROBABLY NEED TO BE REWRITTEN IF, IF THIS IDEA OF FAR MASSING IS GOING TO BE ENFORCED IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
SO I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S BASICALLY OUR POSITION.
I DUNNO IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME.
ARE THERE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FOR MR. CASTELLO? NO, I, I WILL SAY THAT OUR, UH, THE APPEALS BOARD HAS ITS OWN, IS BOUND BY ITS OWN RESTRICTIONS OF WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT.
SO WE WE'RE NOT AS SUBJECTIVE AS THE HHC.
WE ARE BOUND BY LOOKING AT IF THE HHC FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURES OF THE, THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.
SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE RESTRICTIONS ON US AS FAR AS WHERE WE CAN GO ON CERTAIN MATTERS.
AND IF YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, LEGAL CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT.
BUT THE, WE ARE MORE BOUND THAN YOU WOULD PERCEIVE AS FAR AS WHAT WE CAN, OUR, OUR VIEW OF WHAT WE CAN REVIEW.
WE'VE HEARD THE SPEAKERS AND STAFF.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON AGENDA ITEM TWO? I'LL MAKE A MOTION BASED ON THE INCLUSION OF THE PORCH AS FAR IN, AT LEAST IN PART THAT WE MAKE SURE I GET THE, UH, RIGHT CHOICE OF WORDS HERE.
UM, REVERSE THE COMMISSION'S DECISION.
IS THAT THE RIGHT
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND ADMINISTER.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
VIRA BLAND SUPPORT M ADMINISTER SUPPORT.
UH, OPPOSED? A OPPOSED, BARTELLA OPPOSED.
UH, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD HAVE COMMENTS OR ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE? HUH? I CAN COMMENT.
UM, YEAH, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO, TO COMMENT ABOUT THE, UH, THE EFFECT OF A, WHAT WE DO ON A PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND THE VALUE OF THEM.
I, I THINK, UM, EQUALLY, UH, A PROBLEM THAT COMMISSIONER HELLER POINTED OUT, OR BOARD MEMBER HELLER POINTED OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T APPROVE ANYTHING AND PEOPLE BECOME RESISTANT OR, OR START TO NOT LIKE HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
I THINK THE OPPOSITE IS, IS QUITE OFTEN A RISK TOO, WHERE NEIGHBORS SEE THEIR, UH, WHAT THEY THOUGHT WERE IN A LIVING IN A PROTECTED DISTRICT THAT WAS GONNA MAINTAIN A CERTAIN CHARACTER AND, AND LARGE INCOMPATIBLE BUILDINGS GETTING BUILT AND, AND US APPROVING TOO MANY THINGS, I THINK EQUALLY WOULD UNDERMINE EVEN IN A WORSE WAY, UH, PEOPLE'S CONFIDENCE OR, OR, OR BELIEF IN THE VALUE OF WHAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.
SO OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE BOTH SIDES OF THAT.
YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL AND JUST APPLY IT AS, AS FAIRLY AS YOU CAN, UH, WITH THE GOAL THAT I THINK WE ALL AGREE IS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THESE SPECIAL LITTLE POCKETS OF HOUSTON.
UM, THAT'S ALL MY COMMENT AND I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, ADD SOMETHING ONTO THAT.
UH, HAVING LIVED IN THE HEIGHTS AND MY BUSINESSES IN THE HEIGHTS AND, AND A DRIVE AROUND IN THE AREA, YOU CAN TELL WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE STREET SIGNS WHEN YOU CROSS OUT OF A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND OR INTO, OUT OF A HISTORIC DISTRICT, INTO A, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE THAT DISTRICT AT THE HOUSES THAT, THAT GO UP, THAT USED TO BE COMMONPLACE WITHIN THE HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICTS BEFORE THE
[01:35:01]
90 DAY WAIVER, UH, DISAPPEARED.SO I THINK, AND I AGREE, THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFIT THAT IT'S DONE TO PROTECT HOMES IN THE AREA.
AND, UM, AGAIN, ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS DRIVE JUST OUTSIDE THE AREA AND SEE, DRIVE DOWN STEW WOOD, AND YOU LOOK ON, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE ON CORNER LOTS AT THE MASSIVE HOMES THAT ARE GOING UP, YOU KNOW, AT THE EXPENSE OF ORIGINAL HOMES THAT WERE BUILT IN THOSE AREA, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT IN A PROTECTED HISTORIC DISTRICT ANYMORE, OR IS NOT, PERIOD.
BUT ANYWAY, ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE, I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING TOWARD TODAY.