[Historic Preservation Appeals Board on December 2, 2024]
[00:00:19]
2024.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 VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION OPTION, HOUSTON TELEVISION, HTV OFFERS VIEWING OPTIONS VIA THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEBPAGE BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND RESPOND BY REPEATING YOUR NAME AND SAYING, PRESENT WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME.
LIBBY VIER BLAND IS NOT PRESENT TODAY.
NICOLE BRUSARD HERE FOR DIRECTOR TRAN.
AS CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON HOW THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED.
ALL SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO FILL OUT SPEAKER REQUEST FORM, TURN IT INTO THE FRONT DESK, AND EACH SPEAKER WILL BE HEARD IN PERSON.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE STAFF WILL OPEN WITH A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE APPEAL THAT IS ON BEFORE THE BOARD.
THE APPELLANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE NEXT AND WILL BE GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.
I WILL THEN CALL FOR ANY SPEAKERS WHO WISH TO COMMENT.
WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL ALSO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY STAFF.
THE APPELLANT MAY HAVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL IF DESIRED.
AND FINALLY, BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKERS, WHICH WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THE 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 IN THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THIS MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD IS BEING CONDUCTED IN PERSON ONLY AT 900 BAGBY STREET IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE PUBLIC LEVEL OF THE CITY HALL ANNEX.
YOU CAN SEE AN ONLINE AGENDA FOR DETAILS.
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 I, WHEN YOU MAKE A SECOND OR A MOTION.
MOTION EDM MINSTER, UH, ELLIOT.
NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS ON CONSIDERATION OF AND ACCEPTABLE IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024.
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 7 6 1 5 MONTE GLENN DRIVE IN GLENBROOK VALLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE APPEAL BOARD.
I HOPE YOU HAD A GOOD THANKSGIVING.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON KARA QUIGLEY.
I PRESENT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
ITEM ONE AT 7 6 1 5 MOUNT GLEN DRIVE IN THE GLENBROOK VALLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE PROPERTY CAN BE DESCRIBED AS A NON-CONTRIBUTING AMERICAN RANCH SALE RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1963, SITUATED ON A 7,839 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT.
THE EXISTING ALUMINUM, NO FINISH WINDOWS, WHICH FEATURE A HARLEQUIN DIAMOND PATTERN, ARE ORIGINAL TO THE BUILDING.
THESE FRONT WINDOWS ARE THE ONLY REMAINING ALUMINUM WINDOWS ON THE HOUSE.
ALL OTHER WINDOWS HAVE BEEN REPLACED IN PAST YEARS WITH VINYL WINDOWS.
THE APPLICANT HAS EXPRESSED CONCERN OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN THE PRESENCE OF INCREASED MOISTURE WITH THE EXISTING ALUMINUM WINDOWS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL FROM THE COMMISSION TO REPLACE THE EXISTING ALUMINUM WINDOWS WITH NEW VINYL WINDOWS THAT WILL ADDRESS HER CONCERNS AS WELL AS MATCH THE OTHER VINYL WINDOWS ON THE HOUSE.
ON AUGUST 28TH, 2024, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REQUESTING TO REPLACE THE WINDOWS.
THE PROJECT WAS BROUGHT TO THE OCTOBER 10TH, 2024 HAHC MEETING WITH A STAT RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL.
THE PROJECT WAS REFERRED TO THE NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024 COMMISSION MEETING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT MORE TIME TO WORK WITH STAFF TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE REPLACEMENT OPTION.
[00:05:01]
THE TIME BETWEEN THE OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER HHC MEETINGS, STAFF PROVIDED THE APPLICANT WITH FOUR DIFFERENT VARIATIONS OF WINDOW QUOTES.DETAILS OF THESE QUOTES CAN BE FOUND ON PAGES 57 THROUGH 63 OF THE STAFF REPORT.
THE PROJECT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024 HHC MEETING WITH A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AT THE NOVEMBER 7TH COMMISSION MEETING.
THE HHC ACTED ON THE COA WITH AN APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
THE CONDITIONS STATE THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED TO REPLACE THE EXISTING ALUMINUM WINDOWS WITH NEW ENERGY EFFICIENT NO FINISH ALUMINUM WINDOWS.
THE COMMISSION DID NOT APPROVE THE USE OF VINYL AS AN APPROPRIATE REPLACEMENT.
THE APPLICANT'S GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ARE SPECIFIED ON PAGE ONE OF YOUR PACKET, AS WELL AS LETTERS ON PAGE 54 TO 55, WHICH ARE ALSO ATTACHMENTS A AND B OF EXHIBIT 1D OF THE STAFF REPORT.
THE APPLICANT COULD NOT ATTEND TODAY'S MEETING, BUT SHE BELIEVES THAT THE APPROVAL OF VINYL WINDOWS WILL PROVIDE LONG-TERM BENEFITS THAT OUTWEIGH THE PERCEIVED ADVANTAGES OF ALUMINUM WINDOWS.
THE APPLICANT KINDLY REQUESTS THE BOARD REEVALUATE THE WINDOW MATERIAL GUIDELINES AND CONSIDER GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE INSTALLATION OF VINYL WINDOWS AT HER PROPERTY.
STATEMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS CAN ALSO BE FOUND IN EXHIBIT D.
ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECEIVED A LETTER OF SUPPORT ON NOVEMBER 27TH FROM THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM 76 15 MON GLEN.
THIS NEIGHBOR IS ALSO A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING AND RECEIVED AN APPROVED COA IN OCTOBER, 2019 TO REPLACE 16 ORIGINAL ALUMINUM WINDOWS WITH NEW VINYL WINDOWS.
THE LETTER CAN BE FOUND IN EXHIBIT G OF THE STAFF REPORT CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE HPAB I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK WHY THE HOUSE WAS CLASSIFIED AS CONTRIBUTING.
UH, IT WAS NOT OF APPROPRIATE AGE AT THE TIME THAT THE DISTRICT WAS CREATED.
IT WAS SHORT OF SEVERAL YEARS.
SO, UM, STAFF CHANGED RECOMMENDATION BETWEEN THE TWO HHC.
WAS THERE A PARTICULAR REASON ABOUT THAT? DO YOU STAND THAT? GOOD MORNING CHAIR.
UH, THIS IS ROMAN MCALLEN THAT STRUCK PRESERVATION OFFICER THAT PRIMARILY THERE WAS NEW INFORMATION THAT CAME TO LIGHT BETWEEN THE, UH, MEETING IN WHICH IT WAS DEFERRED, AND THEN THE MEETING, UH, AT WHICH IT WAS, UH, APPROVED CONDITIONALLY.
THE NEW INFORMATION WAS REGARDING COST AND FINANCING.
WE WERE AWARE THAT THERE WERE OTHER OPTIONS THAT WOULD OF WINDOWS THAT WE WOULD'VE PREFERRED TO SEE BE THE WINDOWS TO REPLACE THESE.
BUT IN THE IN-BETWEEN GAP WITH THE STAFF, WITH THE APPLICANT, AND WORKING WITH THEM, THE COST, BASICALLY THE, THE COST AND THE WAY THAT WINDOW REPLACEMENT WAS GONNA BE PAID FOR, UH, BE WE'RE TOO BURDENSOME APPARENTLY FOR THE, FOR THE OWNER.
AND WE AGREED WITH THE OWNER AND WE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
UM, THE OTHER THING THAT WAS DISCUSSED, UH, IS THAT IT WAS BASED ON A PRECEDENT THAT WAS BEING SET, UH, FROM THE PREVIOUS, UH, OCTOBER COMMISSION, UH, WHERE HHC APPROVED, UM, ANOTHER NON-CONTRIBUTING HOUSE IN THE HEIGHTS TO REPLACE THEIR WINDOWS FOR ENERGY REASONING.
UM, AND WE FELT THAT THEY WERE PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER.
UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKER FORMS. WAS THERE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT? WE KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT, UH, PRESENT, CORRECT? THERE'S ONE SPEAKER, ONE SPEAKER, AND THEN TODAY, AFTER, AFTER THE SPEAKER, WE ONLY HAVE ONE SPEAKER, SO THEN MEMBER DISCUSSION WILL BE AFTER THAT.
ALRIGHT, SO, UH, SINCE I DON'T HAVE THE FORM, IF YOU WOULD COME UP AND SAY YOUR NAME IN THE, UH, MICROPHONE.
I'M SORRY YOU DON'T HAVE THE FORM.
I HAVE IT HERE IF YOU'D LIKE IT.
GOOD MORNING, UH, CHAIR AND BOARD, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS MORNING.
I'M AN, UH, LONG TIME HOUSTONIAN WITH A LONGTIME INTEREST IN, UH, GLENBROOK VALLEY AS A NEIGHBORHOOD, AND NOW AS A DISTRICT.
UH, I'M A PRACTICING ARCHITECT IN HOUSTON.
UM, I LEAD THE GROUP HOUSTON MOD AND ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION FOR SPECIFICALLY FOR, UH, MID-CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL LEGACY.
AND, UM, WITH, UH, COUNCIL'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT,
[00:10:01]
I'LL MENTION I'M ALSO AN HA HC COMMISSIONER, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT HERE UNDER THOSE, UM, UH, CONDITIONS TODAY.UM, BUT I'M KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE ISSUES AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ANYONE'S GOT.
SO I'M THE ONE WHO'S HANDED YOU, UH, SOME INFORMATION.
IF I COULD TAKE A MOMENT WITH YOU AND REVIEW THEM.
THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE HOUSE YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY SEEN.
SO I'LL BE BRIEF, 76 15 MOUNT GLEN DRIVE.
UM, NON-CONTRIBUTING, AS YOU HEARD, BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT IN DOCUMENT CAMERA BUILT IN 1963 AND GLENBURG VALLEY WAS MADE AT DISTRICT IN 2011 AND 12, SO IT MISSED BY A YEAR OR TWO.
SO, UM, NON-CONTRIBUTING, UH, BY DEFINITION, BUT IN FACT IT CONTRIBUTES, UM, GREATLY TO GLENBROOK VALLEY, SPECIFICALLY TO AS MUCH AS ANY TO THIS SECTION OF GLENBROOK VALLEY.
I WANTED TO BE SURE THAT YOU HAD SEEN THAT THE WINDOWS IN QUESTION RELATE TO OTHER, UM, CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS, ESPECIALLY THE, UM, ELEGANT LONG MODULAR BRICK WITH THE CLEFT FACE, THE, UH, STACKED PAIR OF COLUMNS AND THIS, UM, INTRICATE ALUMINUM DETAILING OF THE WINDOWS.
THERE'S 730 PANES OF GLASS IN THESE WINDOWS, SO VERY MUCH CHARACTER DEFINING OF THE ERA OF THE HOUSE.
UM, OTHER WINDOWS, UNFORTUNATELY HAVE BEEN RECENTLY REPLACED AS FAR AS WE KNOW, WITHOUT PURVIEW BY THE COMMISSION OR THE FLOOR OR PERMIT.
SO AS FAR AS MATCHING GOES, I, I THINK THAT'S SPECIOUS.
THE SECOND, UH, HANDOUT I WANTED YOU TO SEE IS THIS SEVERAL PAGE HANDOUT FROM THE HAHC ILLUMINA WINDOW SUBCOMMITTEE, UH, WITH OPTIONS FOR REPAIR OF EX EXISTING, UH, CHARACTER DEFINING MATERIAL, NAMELY ALUMINUM WINDOWS, MULTIPLE OPTIONS FOR REPAIR.
THE SECOND PAGE IS MULTIPLE OPTIONS FOR, UM, INTERIOR SUPPLEMENT TO SATISFY MY PERCEPTIONS ABOUT, UH, UH, ACOUSTICS, ABOUT THERMAL PERFORMANCE, UM, AND AS INTERIOR, ESSENTIALLY STORM WINDOWS, UH, RESOLVING THE ISSUES, UH, AESTHETIC ISSUES RELATED TO BEING IN THE DISTRICT.
AND THEN THE NEXT FEW PAGES ARE REPLACEMENT OPTIONS, WHERE AS A LAST RESORT, AS THERE MANY WAYS TO GET, UH, SIMILAR WINDOWS TO THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL, THERE'S A MYTHOLOGY THAT ALUMINUM WINDOWS ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE.
AND SO PART OF THE REASON FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S WORK HERE IS TO, UH, PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE CONTRARY IN MULTIPLE.
UM, THE OTHER TWO PIECES OF INFORMATION YOU'VE GOT, I HOPE, ARE, UM, PRESERVATION MANUAL EXCERPTS, WHICH Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH.
THERE'S A ONE PAGER, UH, YOU CAN CONTINUE.
THE ONE PAGER, UM, IS A CHART SHOWING THAT ON THE LEFT, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES SUCH AS THIS, UM, ARE, UH, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL CRITERIA AS ARE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.
UNDER THAT COLUMN, IT SAYS ALTERATIONS, REHABILITATION, RESTORATIONS, AND DOOR ADDITIONS.
AND CLEARLY THIS IS, UM, SUBJECT IN HAND IS, IS THAT I UNDERLINE THAT LAST LINE.
AND THE SMALL PRINT BELOW ORDINARY MANUAL NEEDS TO REPAIR DOES NOT INCLUDE REPLACEMENT OF HISTORIC MATERIAL.
AND THEN FINALLY, IN YOUR HANDOUTS, TWO PAGE EXCERPT FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION MANUAL, WHICH IS ALL WE'VE GOT WITHOUT DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THIS DISTRICT, RIGHT? SO PAGE ONE, I DON'T, I HAVE A BOXED OF THE VERY CLEAR INFORMATION ABOUT LINE WINDOW REPLACEMENT ENGINEER MATERIAL.
AND PAGE TWO, TWO IS ANOTHER CHART SHOWING BOTTOM, UH, GROW WINDOWS VINYL WIDE FRAME WHITE FRAME SLASH INCOMPATIBLE.
SO THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT WE USED, UH, IN THE SUBMITTAL TO THE COMMISSION.
I'LL CONFIRM FOR THE AUDIENCE, UH, THAT WE DID RECEIVE FOR, UH, ATTACHMENTS FROM YOU.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, UNLESS ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS OF ME.
WERE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? ONLY COMMENT I'LL MAKE IS REGARDS TO THE CRITERIA, UM, AND WHY VINYL IS, IS NOT COMPATIBLE A WIDE FRAME REPLACEMENT.
ALUMINUM ALSO DO NOT HAVE THE MINIMUM MINIMAL FRAME S BECAUSE THE THERMAL BRAKE REQUIREMENTS AND CODE, THEY'RE
[00:15:01]
MUCH MORE SUBSTANTIAL.IF WE LOOK AT THE PICTURE OF ONE OF THE REPLACEMENT OPTIONS, THE FIRST ONE, YOU CAN TELL THAT IT'S A MUCH BEEFIER FRAME, SO IT'S NOT GONNA LOOK LIKE THE EXISTING ALUMINUM WINDOWS, THE FRAMES THAT AREN'T GONNA BE REALLY REMOTELY CLOSE.
THAT'S WHY IT'S THE THIRD LAST OPTION, REPLACEMENT VERSUS REPAIR OR INTERIOR SUPPLEMENT.
AND ALTHOUGH I AGREE CERTAINLY AND ANYONE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT STUFF, WE'LL NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE.
IT'S AMONG THE BEST OPTIONS AVAILABLE WHERE REPLACEMENT IS A REQUIREMENT.
SAY IN TERMS WE, WE SEE DAMAGE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE SEE TRUE DETERIORATION AND LOSS.
I MIGHT ADD THAT THE, UM, CLAIM HERE IS ABOUT NON-PERFORMANCE OF THESE WINDOWS.
UM, AND THESE WINDOWS, NOT ONLY ARE THEY GORGEOUS, BUT THEY'VE BEEN THERE ORIGINALLY IN PLACE IN THE HOUSE FOR 60 YEARS AND HAVING SEEN THEM CLOSE UP, THERE ARE NO BROKEN PAINTINGS OF GLASS ZERO AND THE HOUSE IS METICULOUSLY MAINTAINED.
THERE'S NO SETTLEMENT, SO THERE'S NO REASON FOR THOSE FRAMES NOT TO REMAIN.
UM, APPARENTLY THE CONCERN ABOUT MOISTURE IS ABOUT CONDENSATION.
AND SO AN INTERIOR SUPPLEMENT ISSUE, WHICH IS AESTHETICALLY ACCEPTABLE, WHICH IS A FRACTION OF THE COST OF REPLACEMENT, WHICH IS MUCH LESS RISKY IN TERMS OF DAMAGING OTHER ORIGINAL MATERIALS SUCH AS THE BRICKS AROUND OF THESE FOUR OPENINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, IT'S BEEN DEEMED UNACCEPTABLE BY THE APPLICANT FOR REASONS I KNOW.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK YOU.
UH, I JUST, UM, I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE WITH THIS ONE IS THE FACT IT'S A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD SOMETHING COME UP BEFORE, UH, ESPECIALLY IN GLENBROOK VALLEY, UH, EVEN THOUGH THE NON-CONTRIBUTING CRITERIA ARE, ARE SIMILAR WORDS, I THINK THEY REALLY APPLY KIND OF A DIFFERENT STANDARD IN THE NON-CONTRIBUTING CONTEXT BECAUSE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DEMOLISH NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING.
SO IT, IT DOES, YOU HAVE TO KIND OF LOOK AT IT AS, UM, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THAT LANGUAGE DOING WHEN APPLIED TO A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING? AND KIND OF THE, THE BACKGROUND OF, OF WHY THAT'S EVEN IN THERE.
LIKE WHY, WHY WOULD THE ORDINANCE EVEN CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING IF THEY ALLOW DEMOLITION? AND AS I RECALL, AND THAT WAS PUT IN THERE, IT WAS BECAUSE THE, UM, UH, THE, THE CITY COUNCIL WAS CONCERNED, YOU KNOW, BY RECOMMENDATION OF HHC, THAT A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING COULD BE SORT OF ALTERED.
AND, UH, YOU COULD DO KIND OF A STEALTH SIDE DOOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT BY INCREMENTALLY MODIFYING A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING AND NEVER BE UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
UH, AND SO IT WAS CONSIDERED THE BEST THING TO DO WOULD BE TO AT LEAST HAVE THEM RUN THROUGH THE HHC FOR SOME BROAD KIND OF ISSUES OF COMPATIBILITY.
AND I THINK ALSO THE IDEA WAS YOU WERE GONNA BE CONFRONTED WITH MUCH LATER UNSYMPATHETIC, NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS, AND YOU EITHER HAD TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF KEEP THAT STYLE OR YOU HAD TO BRING IT MORE INTO HARMONY WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU WERE GONNA HAVE NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS THAT WERE THE, UH, TYP IFICATION OF THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, AND IT'S A VERY UNUSUAL SITUATION.
UM, I, I THINK, UH, UNFORTUNATELY 'CAUSE OF GLENBROOK VALLEY AND HOW RECENT IT IS, AND, AND WHEN THE DISTRICT WAS DESIGNATED, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A FEW BUILDINGS THAT ARE JUST LEGALLY NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS, BUT FOR ALL OF THEIR INTENTS AND PURPOSES ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, I BELIEVE THE SOLUTION TO THAT IS UNFORTUNATELY THE LABORIOUS ONE OF AMENDING THE DISTRICT AND INCLUDING THESE BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN JUST TREAT THEM AS CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS WHEN LEGALLY THEY'RE IN THE NON-CONTRIBUTING CATEGORY.
SO I THINK THAT'S SORT OF A, UH, THE, THE THRESHOLD KIND OF ISSUE YOU'RE DEALING WITH.
AND SO THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE LANGUAGE IS SORT OF THE SAME, BUT IT'S TECHNICALLY A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING? WELL, I, I THINK YOU'VE GOTTA APPLY KINDA A LOOSER STANDARD TO IT.
AND, UM, IT'S BASICALLY CONSIDERED NOT HISTORIC MATERIAL IF IT'S A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING, UNFORTUNATELY.
AND SO YOU LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S, WHAT'S PERMITTED TO PUT ON THERE? UM, UH, I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO CON UM, HISTORIC MATERIAL BEING REPLACED.
AND SO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE DOES HAVE A DISCUSSION OF WHEN THAT'S APPROPRIATE AND ALL OF THAT.
UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN NO HISTORIC WINDOWS REMAIN, THE APPEARANCE OF REPLACEMENT WINDOW MUST BE
[00:20:01]
CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A HISTORIC WINDOW OF THE TYPE AND PERIOD, BUT MAY NOT REPLICATE THE MISSING HISTORIC WINDOW.IN MANY CASES, THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED USING SUBSTITUTE MATERIALS.
SO, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE ISSUE.
UM, MAY I ASK YOU THE FIRST PART? YEAH.
UH, THIS IS FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE UNDER A WEBSITE THAT TALKS ABOUT WINDOW REPLACEMENTS, WHETHER THEY MEET THE STANDARDS, AND THIS IS FOR TAX INCENTIVES, AND SO IT'S NOT COMPLETELY THE SAME, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S STRICT AND CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES.
AND SO, UH, REPLACEMENT WINDOWS WHERE NO HISTORICAL WINDOWS REMAIN, THAT THE PART, OKAY.
UM, SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I COME AT THIS INITIALLY.
AND, UH, I THINK IT'S, THESE ARE VERY SPECIAL WINDOWS AND I THINK, UM, IT, IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO LOSE THEM, BUT I THINK LEGALLY THEY'RE CONSIDERED NOT HISTORIC MATERIAL.
AND SO YOU'D HAVE TO LOOK AT, IS THE REPLACEMENT BEING PUT IN THERE, SOMETHING THAT IS, UM, CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HISTORIC WINDOW OF THE TYPE AND PERIOD.
SO THEN IT'S AN ISSUE OF DOES IT HAVE TO BE ALUMINUM OR CAN IT BE VINYL, I SUPPOSE.
AND SO WHAT YOU DO THERE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, IS THE MATERIAL ESSENTIAL.
AND, UH, THIS IS A ISSUE I'VE HAD BEFORE TOO, WHERE I REALLY DON'T THINK THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES REPLACEMENT OF, LIKE, WITH LIKE, UH, IT DOES SAY THAT IN THE LANGUAGE, BUT I BELIEVE THE CONSISTENCY IS ALSO FOUND IN THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ABOUT WINDOWS WHERE IT SAYS A MATERIALS AND FINISH, WHILE IT MAY BE THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE TO MATCH ALL THE SIGNIFICANT CHARACTERISTICS OF HISTORIC WINDOW IN A SUBSTITUTE MATERIAL, AND ACTUALITY FINISH PROFILES DIMENSION AND DETAILS ARE ALL AFFECTED BY A CHANGE OF MATERIAL.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN PEOPLE SAY YOU HAVE TO REPLACE ALUMINUM WITH ALUMINUM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE REALLY USING IT AS A SHORTHAND FOR A KIND OF A CONSTELLATION OF VISUAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE ONLY REALLY ACHIEVABLE OR MOST EASILY ACHIEVABLE WITH THE SAME MATERIAL.
UM, SO I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT I THINK IS THE MAIN THING.
NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ALUMINUM AGAIN, BUT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S, UH, THE APPEARANCE IS, UH, VISUALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC CHARACTER.
UM, ALL THAT'S KIND OF A LONG, LONG PREFACE FOR SAYING, I'M, I, I'M JUST GONNA STOP RIGHT THERE AND LET OUR PEOPLE SPEAK FOR A WHILE.
WELL, I COULD NEVER PUT THAT QUITE AS ARTICULATE AS MR. ELLIOT, BUT I, I AGREE WITH THOSE SENTIMENTS.
AND, UH, A COUPLE OTHER THINGS JUST TO KIND OF ADD, AS WAS MENTIONED, THE APPROVING THE NON-CONTRIBUTING HOUSE AND THE HEIGHTS TO REPLACE WINDOWS KIND OF ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT IN MY EYES.
AND THEN LASTLY, I THINK, UM, WE HAVE, AND I SAY WE, SINCE I'VE SPENT EIGHT YEARS ON THE, ON THE COMMISSION BEFORE THE APPEALS BOARD, BUT HAS APP ALLOWED BASICALLY ANY TYPE OF WINDOW IN EITHER IN ADDITION OR A NON NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT WITH SOME LIMITS.
IT HAD TO BE TYPICALLY IF THEY'RE TALLER THAN THEY ARE WIDE, YOU KNOW, IN THE HEIS OR WHATEVER DISTRICT, THOSE KIND OF REQUIREMENTS DIDN'T MATTER WHETHER THEY WOOD, VINYL, ALUMINUM, FIBERGLASS, WHATEVER.
UM, AND THEN TO REITERATE SOME OF THE THINGS MR. ELLIOT SAID, UH, THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE COULD BE DEMOLISHED TELLS ME THAT IT IS DEEMED TO HAVE NO HISTORIC MATERIALS OR VALUE, WHICH I MEAN, I, I THINK IS, UH, KIND OF A EMOTIONALLY WRONG
JUST LOOK AS AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
WELL, THE, THE, THE LEGAL CATEGORIES, IT'S CONTRIBUTING TO NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING IS THE MOST SALIENT LEGAL CATEGORY, UH, OF, OF HOW THIS HOUSE IS TREATED UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
IT, YEAH, IT, IT, IT DOES THE, UH, CRITERIA AND CERTIFICATES APPROPRIATE SUPP SUPPLY TO NON ENCRYPTING BUILDINGS, BUT IT, IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR 'EM TO APPLY IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS THEY APPLY TO CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS.
AND SO WE ARE, WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH SOMETHING WHICH, YOU KNOW, HAS GOT THE SAME WORDS, BUT CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE THE SAME LEGAL MEANING BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST, THEY'RE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.
AND SO, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, I'M JUST TRYING TO RECONCILE WHAT THESE TWO INCOMPATIBLE THINGS YOU CAN, YOU CAN DEMOLISH THE LAW ALLOWS YOU TO DEMOLISH THAT BUILDING, BUT YOU KNOW, THE LAW SAYS IF YOU TOUCH, UH, ONE HAIR ON IT, IT'S GOTTA BE THE SAME AS IF IT'S A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S A CONSISTENT OR COHERENT INTERPRETATION
[00:25:01]
OF THE ORDINANCE AS A WHOLE.I I, I THINK THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO, I'M SORRY,
I MEAN, THE OTHER THING I WANNA SAY ABOUT THIS, THIS CASE AND THIS PROCESS IS I THINK FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS ORDINANCE, WE ALWAYS FELT IT HAD A VERY LARGE EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT TO IT, WHICH WAS KIND OF CRITICAL.
AND WHEN SOMEONE ACTUALLY ENGAGED WITH THE PROCESS IS THIS APPLICANT DOES, I MEAN, THAT IS, IF THIS APPLICANT WAS NOT CONVINCED AFTER ALL THE TIME AND CONCERN PEOPLE PUT INTO PRESERVING THESE WINDOWS THAT THEY'RE WORTH PRESERVING, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE COULD BE DONE FROM THE EDUCATIONAL POINT OF VIEW.
I, I COMMEND THE ALUMINUM SUBCOMMITTEE, THE WINDOW SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE STAFF FOR GOING THROUGH ALL THE OPTIONS WITH THIS PERSON AND EXPLAINING TO HER WHY THESE WINDOWS ARE OF SPECIAL, UH, IMPORTANCE TO HER HOUSE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE CITY.
UM, AND I, I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE IT'S TECHNICALLY A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING, THAT'S AS FAR AS WE CAN GET WITH THE PROCESS.
UM, I JUST, I DON'T THINK, UM, THERE'S, THERE'S MORE THAT CAN BE DONE AND I DON'T KNOW WHY IT DIDN'T APPEAL TO HER.
IF, IF I HAD THESE WINDOWS, I, I WOULD PRESERVE THEM AS A NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR LIVING IN THAT HOUSE.
SO I CAN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND IT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO, TO COMPEL A RESULT FOR A NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDING.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR LEGAL ON THIS ITEM? I HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION FOR STAFF AND HAVING GROWN UP IN A SIMILAR, UH, HOME AS THIS ONE WITH, IN MY CASE, LEATHER GLASS WINDOWS IN THE FRONT BAY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, AND I'M HORRIBLY TROUBLED ABOUT LOSING THAT TYPE OF, UH, FEATURE, UH, IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, I ACTUALLY SAW MY OWN HOUSE HAD, UH, VINYL WINDOWS REPLACED AND IT LOOKED HORRIBLE.
I REMEMBER GOING BY A NUMBER OF YEARS LATER, IN ANY EVENT, MY GENERAL QUESTION IS WHERE STUCK? I WANNA SAVE THOSE WINDOWS, BUT IT'S A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
AND IS THERE ANY ABILITY OR INTEREST BY STAFF TO GO AHEAD AND MAYBE COMB, MAYBE EVEN STARTING WITH GLENBROOK VALLEY TO CAPTURE NON-CONTRIBUTING HOUSING THAT JUST BY VIRTUE OF WHEN THE UH, ORDINANCE WAS CREATED WERE EXCLUDED FROM BEING CONTRIBUTING SUCH THAT WE DON'T END UP IN THIS HORRIBLE SITUATION IN THE FUTURE? YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT WE AS A BOARD REALLY WANT TO HAVE TO KEEP GOING THROUGH THESE THINGS AND LOSING MATERIAL THAT COULD BE SAVED HAD IT BEEN CONTRIBUTING, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT'S NOT.
SO WHAT DO WE DO? AND SO THE ONLY THING I KNOW IS TO AT LEAST, OKAY, MY BAD ON THIS ONE, BUT WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO ABOUT THE NEXT ONE? AND THE SOONER WE ACT THE BETTER.
SO THAT'S A LONG-WINDED WAY OF SAYING, IS THERE THE ABILITY BY STAFF TO CORRECT SITUATIONS TO START CAPTURING NON-CONTRIBUTING HOMES IN SOME OF OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS SUCH THEY BECOME CONTRIBUTING? RIGHT.
AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS AS STAFF VERY OFTEN, SINCE THIS IS A VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE AT THIS POINT, UM, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT WOULD REQUIRE US FULLY RESURVEY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN DOING.
UM, I BELIEVE IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE GOING BACK TO CITY COUNCIL, UM, TO AMEND THE INVENTORY AND COMPLETELY REVISE THE DISTRICT.
UM, SO IT IS A POSSIBILITY, UM, BUT IT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY.
I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH AS WE'D LIKE TO HAVE IMMEDIATE RESULTS, THAT'S NOT GONNA BE ONE OF 'EM.
I WOULD SAY THAT AT LEAST THAT I JUST NEED TO LOOK AT THE CONTR, NON-CONTRIBUTING
[00:30:01]
STRUCTURES.IT'S NOT LIKE YOU HAVE TO RESURVEY THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.
CONTRIBUTING IS STILL CONTRIBUTING.
SO WHY GO RESURVEY A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE? AND I THINK THAT CERTAINLY LYNBROOK VALLEY, IF I WERE TO PLACE ODDS THAT THE NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IS A SMALLER SUBSET OF THAT HOLE.
SO, YOU KNOW, ROMAN, PERHAPS YOU CAN SPEAK TO THIS AS FAR AS A DIRECTION AND MAYBE EVEN SETTING SOME, YOU KNOW, DISCUSS AMONGST STAFF AND REPORT BACK TO US AT A FEW MEETING.
YOU KNOW, WHAT CAN WE DO BECAUSE THIS IS NOT, WE GET IT MOST OFTEN IN GLENBROOK VALLEY JUST BECAUSE IT'S NEWER OF THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS.
BUT I'M SURE THAT THERE'S OTHER SITUATIONS IN THE HIGHEST, ET CETERA, THAT WE HAVE THE SAME, SAME ISSUE.
I, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WOULDN'T THIS REQUIRE REVISING THE ORDINANCE ITSELF? BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE SAYS TO BE CONTRIBUTING, IT HAS TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED DURING THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT.
AND IF THIS ONE OR ANY OTHER FALLOUT OUTSIDE OF IT FOR THAT REASON, THEN THE ORDINANCE WOULD'VE TO BE MODIFIED.
'CAUSE YOU CAN'T APPLY TO ONE DISTRICT AND NOT APPLY TO ALL.
AND I DON'T THINK THE CITY HAS ANY INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN TOUCHING THE ORDINANCE ANYTIME SOON.
I WOULD LIKE TO THINK I'M WRONG, BUT, WELL, I THINK THAT'S, UM, BEFORE FIRST, YES, IT HAS TO GO BACK TO CITY COUNCIL AND I WANT TO SET THAT ASIDE, TAKING SOMETHING BACK TO CITY COUNCIL, UM, RIGHT NOW.
BUT TO THE QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, IT'S A COMBINATION OF THINGS.
I THINK NOW I REALIZE THAT THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE IN COMBINATION WITH THE 50 YEAR REQUIREMENT IS WHAT ISOLATED, IF YOU WILL, CERTAIN STRUCTURES.
SO REALLY IN THIS CASE FOR GLENBURG VALLEY, I DON'T THINK YOU'D HAVE TO CHANGE THE PERIOD SIGNIFICANCE.
UM, ALTHOUGH YOU COULD SORT OF CLARIFY IT BECAUSE THIS, THIS STRUCTURE IS CLEARLY WITHIN THE PERIOD OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND ODDLY, MANY OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT THE CITY HAS DON'T ACTUALLY USE THE PHRASE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE, WHICH IS, UM, A LITTLE BIT ODD BECAUSE THEN LATER WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AMENDMENT OF DESIGNATION, WE USE THE TERM PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.
BUT REGARDLESS HERE, IF NOW THIS HOUSE IS BEYOND 50 YEARS AND OTHER HOUSES LIKE IT ARE WELL BEYOND A 50 YEAR MARK OR A FEW YEARS BEYOND IT, SO THEY COULD BE TECHNICALLY, UH, FIT THE CRITERIA TO BE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES AND COME INTO THE DISTRICT.
AND WE HAVE ACTUALLY BEGUN THE WORK, UH, I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW OFTEN, BUT I KNOW THAT, UH, STAFF HAS BEEN OUT RESURVEY IN MANY NEIGHBORHOODS, INCLUDING GLEN BROOK VALLEY.
IT WOULDN'T TAKE MUCH TO SIT DOWN AT THE TABLE AND FIGURE THAT OUT.
I WILL ADD, THOUGH, THERE ARE SOME, WE DO NEED TO TAKE A QUICK LOOK AS WE DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT GOT DESIGNATED CONTRIBUTING THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN.
THEY EXIST IN, I'VE SEEN THEM IN A FEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND, UM, THEY'RE EQUALLY PROBLEMATIC 'CAUSE THEY CAN CAUSE SORT OF OUR PROGRAM TO GUM UP ON THINGS OR THE PERMITTING PROCESS TO GUM UP ON THINGS.
SO THAT'S THE, THE ANSWERS THAT WE, WE CAN DO THAT.
AND THAT'S A BREAD AND BUTTER.
I, I LOOK AT THE NEXT, UM, YOU KNOW, UNDER MAYOR WHITMEYER, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE JUST RETURN TO OUR BREAD AND BUTTER WORK AND CERTAINLY CLEANING UP OUR, UH, SURVEYS, UH, CHECKING THEM, MAKING SURE THINGS ARE ACCURATE IS REALLY, REALLY A GOOD THING TO DO RIGHT NOW, UH, IN THAT REGARD.
AT THE SAME TIME, I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T EXPRESS, UH, WHAT I KNOW SOME EXPERIENCED PRESERVATION PEOPLE IN HOUSTON KNOW IS THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF BRINGING BACK A DISTRICT, UM, BEFORE CITY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE REALLY LOOKING THAT IT, UH, THE, THE ORDINANCE THAT CREATED THAT DISTRICT AND, AND TO SERVE THAT.
AND THERE WOULD BE SOME WHO WOULD EXPRESS TO ME SOME CONCERN THAT YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, LOSE THE DISTRICT IS WHAT SOME WOULD SAY.
I CAN HEAR HE'S, HE'S NOW LEFT HIS POSITION AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BUT DAVID BISHOP WITH PRESERVATION HOUSTON FREQUENTLY FOREWARNED ME NOT TO, TO, TO GET INTO THE DISTRICT CREATIONS.
AND, UM, IIII, I KNOW THAT HE, HE, THERE, THERE'S LEGITIMACY TO THAT CONCERN.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD PLAY THAT OUT AND WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, BUT I COULD SEE THAT THERE WOULD BE THAT.
SO IT'S A COMBINATION OF, YOU KNOW, THE SURVEY.
THE OTHER THING IS TO OFFER A SOLUTION MORE SOONER, THIS AMONGST HHC, WE WILL PRESENT DATA ABOUT WINDOWS IN GLENBROOK VALLEY.
UM, UH, ONE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS HAS BEEN WORKING ON THAT.
[00:35:01]
DEVELOPMENT OF A POLICY TO DEAL TO THE POLICY TO ADDRESS THE, THE WINDOWS IN GLENBROOK VALLEY.IT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION FOR SURE.
IT IS VERY HARD BECAUSE THOSE WINDOWS, UM, AS COMMISSIONER CURRY SPOKE TO, AND, AND AS COMMISSIONER ADMINISTER YOU, YOU YOU'VE MENTIONED THEY'RE CLEARLY A CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURE OF THIS STYLE OF HOME, AND THEY'RE VERY LIMITED IN THEIR PERIOD.
AND, UH, AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, I I I'M JUST, IT, IT, IT'S A CONCERN.
THE WINDOW SALES MAY OUT THERE
UM, SO I THINK WE HAVE TO DO A COMBINATION OF THINGS AND I APPRECIATE WHAT, WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER ELLIOT SAID ABOUT THE EDUCATION AT THE GLENBROOK VALLEY.
I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT WHEN THIS DISTRICT WAS CREATION, IT WASN'T CREATED, IT WAS KNOWN THEN THAT EDUCATION WOULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT COMPONENT TO, TO PROTECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT STILL IS.
AND UM, THAT ALSO SOUNDS LIKE BREAD AND BUTTER WORK.
SO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, PUT OUR HEADS DOWN AND, AND, AND KINDA WORK, WORK THROUGH THIS.
UM, THAT'S ABOUT WHAT I'VE GOT.
IT PROBABLY DIDN'T OFFER ANY REAL SOLUTIONS.
BUT ONE OTHER THING TO ADD IS THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS FOR THE RECLASSIFICATION OF BUILDINGS IN ANY GIVEN HISTORIC DISTRICT, EITHER IS NON-CONTRIBUTING TO CONTRIBUTING OR VICE VERSA.
BUT IN ALL MY YEARS, I'VE ONLY KNOWN ONE APPLICATION TO DO SO.
AND EVEN THOUGH IT MET ALL THE CRITERIA, IT WAS DENIED BY THE COMMISSION.
COMMISSIONER HARRY, THAT'S, AND IT HAS TO BE PUT FORTH BY THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY.
IT CAN'T BE DONE BY ANYONE ELSE.
WELL, WELL ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER, HOW ARE YOU THAT, THAT, THERE'S GOOD NEWS ON THAT, FRED, THE ONE WE'VE BROUGHT, WE HAVE RECLASSIFIED IN THE FIVE YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE AT LEAST FOUR OR FIVE HOUSES.
UM, WE JUST DID A GARAGE APARTMENT IN THE HEIGHTS.
THEY DO COME UP AND ACTUALLY THE CODE SAYS THAT THE CITY CODE SAYS THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING MAY INITIATE A RECLASSIFICATION UPON THE DETERMINATION THAT THE BUILDING WAS INCORRECTLY CLASSIFIED WHEN THE DISTRICT WAS CREATED.
SO WE CAN MAKE A LIST AND WE CAN BRING IT FORWARD.
THAT'S LEGALLY, IT'S JUST I SEE THAT LEGAL MIGHT COMMENT ON THAT.
WE'RE KIND OF MORPHING INTO TWO DIFFERENT TOPICS.
SO WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE AGENDA ITEM ITSELF.
AND WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE HOW TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
AS I, IN MY MIND, I'M THINKING SIX OF THE LAST EIGHT PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE US HAVE BEEN ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
SO IF WE CAN ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, WE'VE ADDRESSED A LION'S SHARE OF THE APPEALS THAT COME TO THE, TO THE BOARD.
BUT, UH, I WILL TABLE THE TOPIC ABOUT THE, THE THANK YOU, THE, AND WE CAN MOVE THAT AFTER THE ACTUAL ITEM THAT IS BEFORE US, WHICH IS THE AGENDA ITEM.
AND DO WE HAVE ANY ACTION ON THAT ITEM? UM, AS I READ WHAT HHC DID BELOW THEY, THEY DENIED THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT TO REPLACE THESE WINDOWS WITH VINYL WINDOWS.
AND THEY ISSUED A CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS, WHICH ALLOWED THE REPLACEMENT OF THESE HARLEAN WINDOWS WITH ALUMINUM WINDOWS.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE HHC DID.
ASIDE FROM MY GENERAL OCCASIONAL COMPLAINT THAT I DON'T THINK THE HHC SHOULD ISSUE CERTIFICATES OR APPROPRIATENESS THAT DON'T HAVE THE ASCENT OR, OR, UM, INITIATION BY THE OWNER, I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN CERTAINLY, UH, PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES THAT IF THE APPLICANT IS AMENABLE TO CAN BE APPROVED, I THINK IT DOES NOT, UM, SERVING A PURPOSE TO, TO PASS THE CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT WANT.
SO, UH, I'M JUST GONNA SET THAT PART ASIDE, UH, BUT POINT OUT IT WOULD ALSO, THAT WOULD'VE RESULTED IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THESE HARLEQUIN WINDOWS, UH, AND SAY REALLY WHAT THE HAPPENED BELOW WAS THEY DENIED THE APPLICANT'S, UH, APPLICATION TO REPLACE THESE WINDOWS WITH VINYL WINDOWS.
UH, BASED ON ALL THE FOREGOING, I, I THINK WE REVERSE THAT DENIAL AND GRANT THE C OF A FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THESE WINDOWS AS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
UM, NOW WE COULD GO BACK TO THE TOPIC WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A MOMENT AGO, IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
KIM MICKELSON WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, I WANTED TO ADDRESS JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT WERE BROUGHT
[00:40:01]
UP IN THE DISCUSSION.NUMBER ONE, LET ME START WITH JUST THE IDEA OF, OF, IS SOMETHING DONE IN THE HEIGHTS A DIFFERENT HISTORIC DISTRICT PRECEDENT FOR ANOTHER HISTORIC DISTRICT? NO.
WE HAVE DIFFERENT DESIGN GUIDELINES.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT CHARACTERS ABSENT AN OVERALL POLICY FOR WINDOWS THAT APPLIES TO ALL DISTRICTS.
I I THINK IT'S NOT PRECEDENT SETTING.
YOU DID HEAR FROM STAFF, I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS HOUSE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PRECEDENT.
UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ACTIONS OF THIS BOARD ARE NOT, OR ACTIONS OF HHC REALLY ARE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF WHAT APPLIES ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
UM, THERE'S, THERE MAY BE POLITICAL ISSUES ABOUT, WELL, YOU GAVE IT TO THEM AND NOT TO ME.
AND WE HAVE TO DO, WE HAVE TO EVALUATE THAT ON AN EQUAL PROTECTION KIND OF A BASIS AND DUE PROCESS, UM, ISSUES, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HAVING STAFF WORK ON SOME OF THESE PO BIGGER POLICY ISSUES.
I I ALSO AGREE THAT THE WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM IS LEGISLATIVELY, IF WE SEE THE SAME PROBLEM, IT MEANS THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON IN THE ORDINANCE THAT ISN'T WORKING AND WE SHOULD ADDRESS THAT.
AND WHETHER WE ADDRESS THAT JUST WITH THE STRAIGHT UP AMENDMENT TO, UM, TO CHAPTER 33 ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OR THROUGH DISTRICT BY DISTRICT REVIEWS OF WHAT'S CONTRIBUTING, WHAT'S NOT, NOT WHAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CONTRIBUTING, WHAT IS NON-CONTRIBUTING AND NOW IS CONTRIBUTING, UM, TAKES LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
AS I'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, SINCE LATE 2021, WE HAVE BEEN, UM, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE POWELL CASE THAT HOLDS, WE ARE UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, UM, FO AND WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE ZONING PROCEDURES, WHICH VERY CLEARLY HAVE CERTAIN STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN PARTICULAR, AND THE CREATION OF, AND PROTEST AGAINST HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS.
AND, UM, A, THEY CLEARLY DESCRIBE THE PROCESS FOR ANY ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND WHETHER THAT'S AS TO ONE PARTICULAR DISTRICT OR TO CHAPTER 33, WHAT PROCESS THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH, UM, AT HHC AND ULTIMATELY TO CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND ACTION BY THOSE GROUPS.
SO IT DOES MAKE THE PROCESS A BIT LONGER THAN EVEN IT WAS BEFORE, WHEN REALLY WE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH TWO 11, UM, IN, YOU KNOW, IN VERY LARGE PART PRIOR TO THAT COURT DECISION.
BUT HERE WE ARE TODAY, SO WE'RE WORKING WITH STAFF, WE ARE WORKING ON SOME AMENDMENTS TO 33 IN GENERAL AND UM, WE'LL SEE WHERE WE GO.
IT'S BEEN ALMOST 10 YEARS SINCE THE ORDINANCE WAS REVISED.
AND I REMEMBER WHEN GLENBROOK VALLEY, WOODLAND HEIGHTS AND THERE'S ONE OTHER DISTRICT COME TO THE COMMISSION TO BE APPROVED, AND THE TIME BETWEEN WHEN THEY HAD SIGNED THE PETITION AND IT MET THE CRITERIA TO COME TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION, UH, THE CITY CHANGED THE ORDINANCE AND DID AWAY WITH A 90 DAY WAIVER.
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANTED TO WITHDRAW THEIR SUPPORT BUT WEREN'T ALLOWED TO.
AND WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM GLENBROOK VALLEY IN HERE, UH, SHARING THEIR, VENTING THEIR IRE AT THE WHOLE PROCESS.
I GO BACK TO THE AGENDA, SO WE MAY, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS CHAIR HAD A SECOND ITEM THERE? APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
THEY DID THAT AT THE BEGINNING.
SO ANY BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS THEN I WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING.