* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [Historic Preservation Appeals Board on May 19, 2025. ] [00:00:07] GOOD MORNING. IT'S 9 0 7 ON MONDAY, MAY 19TH, 2025. I AM JD BARTEL, CHAIR OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD, AND I'M CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER. WE MAY PAUSE IT A LITTLE BIT LATER ON IF SHE, FOR THE ATTORNEY TO ARRIVE. UM, THIS BOARD MEETING IS TAKING PLACE IN THE CITY HALL ANNEX AT 900 BAGBY. ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO LONGER A VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION OPTION, HOUSTON TELEVISION, HTV OFFERS VIEWING OPTIONS VIA THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEBPAGE. BOARD MEMBERS MAY PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND RESPOND BY REPEATING YOUR NAME AND SAYING, PRESENT WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME. I AM THE CHAIR, JD BARTEL, AND I AM PRESENT. DOUGLAS ELLIOT. ELLIOT. PRESENT. TRUMAN MUNSTER MUNSTER. PRESENT. ROB HELLER. HELLER PRESENT. LIBBY VIRA BLAND. VIRA BLAND PRESENT. UM, AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR NICOLE BRUSARD IS NOT HERE, BUT VON TRAN IS HERE AND SHE'S IN THE BACK, UH, DOING SOME COMMUNICATION. . THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM. UH, I'M THE CHAIR. I DO NOT HAVE A REPORT. UH, AS A CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON HOW THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED. 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. WHEN I CALL ON YOU, HIS CIRC PRESERVATION OFFICE STAFF WILL BE WE'LL OPEN WITH A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE APPEAL THAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD. THE APPELLANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE NEXT, AND I WILL BE GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME, OR I WILL 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. FINALLY, BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR SPEAKERS, WHICH WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THE TIME ALLOTTED FOR THE SPEAKING. UM, AND YOU WALKED IN. CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF? GOOD MORNING, CHAIR PARTEL, COMMISSION MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC. I AM VON TRAN, SECRETARY OF THIS BOARD AND DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. I DO NOT HAVE ANY DIRECTOR'S REPORT TO REPORT BACK TO YOU. SO, UH, IN CLOSING, IF YOU HAVE 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 AT PLANNING, I'M SORRY, HOUSTON PLANNING.COM. THIS CONCLUDES MY DIRECTOR'S REPORT. THANK YOU. THE PRIOR MEETING MINUTES WERE POSTED WITH THIS AGENDA. MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ACCEPT THESE MINUTES? SO MOVED. MS. BLAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ELLIOT? SECOND. SO WE ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. YEAH, THE MINUTES HAVE PASSED SINCE WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. I HAD SOMETHING THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE END. I'M GONNA PULL THAT FORWARD, UH, TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME FOR THE ATTORNEY TO COME. AND WHAT IT IS, IS I THINK WE GET A LITTLE BIT DISTRACTED SOMETIMES BY WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WE DOCUMENT CAMERA. WE FORGET THE FRAGILITY OF THE, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE. SO I JUST PUT TOGETHER SOME BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN LOST IN THE LAST, LIKE 12 MONTHS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT AROUND THE COUNTRY. UH, THE FIRST IS THE COX MANSION THAT WAS DEMOLISHED IN AUGUST OF 2024 IN DALLAS. SO, VERY SIGNIFICANT. I'M NOT GONNA GO INTO THE HISTORY OF THE BUILDINGS. YOU CAN LOOK THEM UP, UH, INDEPENDENTLY. UH, THE NEXT PICTURE IS OF IT BEING DEMOLISHED. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE ON THE LIST WE GO THROUGH SOME OF THE FIRE. SO WE HAD THE MAJOR FIRE IN CALIFORNIA, SO WE LOST WILL ROGERS RESIDENCE. THAT'S A POSTCARD OF IT BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE, THE RESULT. UM, THEN THE NEXT ONE IS, I BELIEVE ONE OF THE RICHARD NORA. NO, IT'S THE ALTADENA. UM, HAVE YOU, THIS IS A, WAS A SIGNIFICANT SHINGLE STYLE QUEEN IN HOUSE IN ALTADENA THAT WAS LOST THE MCNALLY HOUSE. UH, THE PUBLISHER, UH, WAS LOST. AND THEN THE NEXT PICTURE IS IT OF AFTER THE FIRE. UM, THEN WE GO INTO THE CHER HOUSES. I THINK THERE'S TWO RICHARD CHER HOUSES. OH, THE GREEN. SO WE HAVE A HIN. HENRY GREEN WAS OF GREEN AND GREEN. THIS IS THE WALTER D. VALENTINE HOUSE. COTTAGE B WAS LOST IN THE ALTA DINA FIRE. AND WE HAD TWO RICHARD CHER HOUSES. UH, THE FRIEDMAN HOUSE, THIS IS BEFORE, THIS IS [00:05:01] ACTUALLY A MARKETING PHOTO WHEN IT WAS BUILT. AND THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE AFTER THE FIRE. AND THEN THE KESSLER HOUSE BY RICHARD NORA AFTER THE FIRE. AND THEN THE NEXT PAGE IS JUST A LIST OF OTHER MID-CENTURY MODERN SIGNIFICANT RESIDENCES THAT WERE LOST. UM, I FOCUSED PER, SINCE I'D PUT THIS TOGETHER, I FOCUSED ON RESIDENCES. THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT OTHER BUILDINGS, UH, THAT WERE ALSO INCLUDED. UM, LAST MONTH THE BALLHOUSE WAS LOST TO FIRE IN GALVESTON. THIS IS A RESTORED VIEW OF IT. AND THEN APRIL 23RD, THIS IS IT AFTER THE FIRE. AND THEN THE LAST ONE HAPPENED THIS WEEKEND. THIS IS NOTTAWAY PLANTATION IN LOUISIANA BEFORE THE FIRE ON FRIDAY AND AFTER THE FIRE ON FRIDAY. SO WE ARE HERE, YOU KNOW, TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PROJECT THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH US. YEAH, THAT'S SOMETHING I . UM, WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS, BUT THIS IS THE REASON WE'RE HERE IS WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE HISTORY IN HOUSTON. AND THE FRAGILITY OF OUR HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN HOUSTON EXTENDS BEYOND THE BORDERS OF HOUSTON. IT'S A NATIONWIDE ISSUE. SO I THOUGHT I WOULD SHOW SOME OF THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT, UH, WE'VE LOST, THAT ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT AROUND THE COUNTRY. MS. TRAN, DID WE GET A, DID WE GET A, UH, DETERMINATION ON WHETHER WE HAVE TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY HERE? I DON'T. OKAY. I I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO IS PROCEED ON CERTAIN ITEMS AND THEN MAYBE TAKE A RECESS. AT LEAST WE CAN GET SOME BUSINESS DONE PRIOR TO THE ATTORNEY GETTING HERE. OKAY. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS 8 25 COLUMBIA. IT'S AGENDA ITEM ONE. IT COULD HAVE THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE APPEALS BOARD. THIS IS STAFF PERSON KARA QUIGLEY. I PRESENT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. ITEM ONE AT 8 25 COLUMBIA STREET IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY INCLUDES A 3,267 SQUARE FOOT. TWO STORY CONTRIBUTING QUEEN AND STYLE RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1910 AND A DETACHED 440 SQUARE FOOT NON-CONTRIBUTING GARAGE SITUATED ON A 6,600 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT. THE PROJECT SUMMARY AND TIMELINE OF EVENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. ON JANUARY 31ST, 2025, THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR A PRE-APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW WITH HOP STAFF. THE PROJECT WAS ASSIGNED TO STAFF PERSON KARA QUIGLEY, AND THE DESIGN REVIEW MEETING WAS HELD ON FEBRUARY 19TH, 2025. TO DISCUSS THE PLANS OF 8 25 COLUMBIA, THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO ADDING A 250 SQUARE FOOT, UH, 250 SQUARE FEET TO THE SECOND FLOOR REAR PORTION OF THE RESIDENCE TO EXPAND THE LIVING SPACE. THE PROPOSED ADDITION WAS TO BE CANTILEVER OVER A NEW UNCONDITIONED REAR COVERED PATIO. THE APPLICANT WAS ADVISED BY STAFF DURING THIS PRE-APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION DID NOT MEET THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS AND THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY MAXED OUT ON ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A 6,600 SQUARE FOOT LOT IN THE HEIGHTS. THE APPLICANT WAS ADVISED THAT HOP STAFF WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE HHC OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION DUE TO IT NOT MEETING THE CRITERIA, BUT STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REAR UNCONDITIONED PORCH ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS SUBMITTED. FOR ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. A NON HISTORIC REAR ADDITION WAS ADDED TO THE BUILDING IN 2015. PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES AND MEASURABLE STANDARDS, THE PROPERTY RECEIVED AN APPROVED COA FOR THE ADDITION AT THAT TIME. SO THE 3,267 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE IS GRANDFATHERED INTO THE DISTRICT WITH ITS EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE BEING OVER THE MAXIMUM 29 0 4 SQUARE FEET FOR FLORIDA AREA RATIO. OUTLINED IN THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS PORTION OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. ON FEBRUARY 28TH, 2025, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A FORMAL APPLICATION FOR A COA FOR THE 250 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AND THE REAR PORCH, NO HHC MEETING WAS HELD IN MARCH, 2025. SO THE PROJECT WAS SET TO BE REVIEWED AT THE APRIL 10TH, 2025 HAHD MEETING. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT WAS A PARTIAL APPROVAL APPROVAL OF THE REAR PORCH AS SUBMITTED WITHOUT CONDITION SPACE ABOVE IT. ON APRIL 7TH, 2025, THE APPLICANT FIRM CONFIRMED THEY WERE AWARE OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION MEETING AT THE APRIL 10TH, 2025 PUBLIC MEETING, THE APPLICANT SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO THE RECOMMENDATION AND WAS SEEKING FULL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT AS SUBMITTED. [00:10:01] THE HHC ACTED ON THE COA TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF A PARTIAL APPROVAL ON APRIL 18TH, 2025. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE HAHC. THE APPLICANT'S GROUNDS FOR APPEAL ARE STATED ON PAGES ONE AND TWO OF THE PACKET. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECEIVED FOUR LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS WITH NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED EDITION. THESE LETTERS CAN BE FOUND IN EXHIBIT 1D, PAGES 44 THROUGH 47 OF THE PACKET FOR REFERENCE. THIS PROPOSED EDITION IS ONLY PARTIAL, PARTIALLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, WAS INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED BY THE APPLICANT TO BE MINIMALLY IMPACTFUL. DOES NOT ALTER THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND HAS THE SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OUT OF THE 11 APPROVAL CRITERIA STATED UNDER SECTION 33 DASH 2 41. CRITERIA 10 AND 11 WERE NOT MET DUE TO THE PROPOSED EDITION EXCEEDING FAR AND HEIGHTS MEASURABLE STANDARDS. THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND ON PAGES SIX AND SEVEN OF THE PACKET CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE APPEALS BOARD. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THIS CAN CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE QUESTION ON ITEM TWO OF THE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL. THEY MENTIONED THAT THERE'S ONE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THAT IS OVER THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IS THAT, WAS THAT STRUCTURE, IT'S JUST NOT DEFINED. IS THAT STRUCTURE HISTORICALLY OF THAT SIZE OR IS THAT COUNTING A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE WITH AN ADDITION? SO, UM, FOR THAT ONE, IS THERE AN, UH, ADDRESS LISTED ON THAT? WHICH PAGE ARE YOU REFERRING TO? OKAY. SO, UH, THEY DID, UM, SUBMIT SEVERAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE EXCEEDING FAR IN THE CONTEXT AREA. UM, THERE IS 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, UM, THAT ARE IN THE GENERAL CONTEXT AREA. ONE IS ON THE 600 BLOCK, ONE IS ON THE 700 BLOCK ONE, TWO ON THE 800 BLOCK. UM, AND ALL OF THOSE WERE DONE PRIOR TO THE, UM, MEASURABLE STANDARDS. SO ALL OF THOSE WERE GRANDFATHERED IN. SO THOSE ARE ALL ADDITIONS, YOUR OR NEW CONSTRUCTION? YES, BUT IT DOES DID MENTION THERE'S ONE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. SO I'M JUST, SO WE'LL WAIT UNTIL THE APPLICANT, I WANNA KNOW WHAT THE ADDRESS IS AND KNOW IF THE ADDITION, IF IT HAS AN ADDITION ON THE BACK THAT MAKE 'CAUSE THE ADDITION WOULDN'T BE COUNTED THE SAME WAY. IF IT'S A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE AND IT'S HISTORICALLY OF THAT SIZE, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT KIND OF CONSIDERATION, RIGHT. THAN IF IT'S JUST A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING WITH AN ADDITION ON THE BACK. SO, AND FOR THE NOTE, SINCE IT'S IN PUBLIC RECORD, I WANNA KNOW WHAT THAT BUILDING IS. SO IF IT IS THE ONE THAT'S ON THEIR IMMEDIATE BLOCK, WHICH IS 8 0 6 COLUMBIA, THEIR UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE ACCORDING TO HAD IS 3,680. IT'S A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING. IT WAS BUILT IN 1920 AND REMODELED IN 2017. UM, THE COA FROM 2017, UH, HAD A 898 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE ON A 6,600 SQUARE FOOT LOT. AND IT APPROVED A 2,960 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY ADDITION, UM, AT THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. SO THAT TOTAL WOULD ACTUALLY BE 3,440 OF NEW CONDITION SPACE AND 3,858, IF YOU INCLUDED THE SPACE. UM, IT WAS DONE BEFORE MEASURABLE STANDARDS AND WAS GRANDFATHERED INTO THE DISTRICT. SO IF THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S BEING SPOKEN ABOUT, THEN THAT'S THE CASE FOR THAT. HOW MANY OF THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE LIST ARE PRIOR TO THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS? ALL OF THEM. . UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I JUST HAVE SOMETHING FOR CLARIFICATION. IF AN APPLICANT RECEIVES A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR AN ALTERATION TO A CONTRIBUTING HOME, UNDERSTAND THAT ALTERATION, WHETHER IT BE AN ADDITION OR JUST OTHER, UH, COSMETIC STUFF, IT'S NOT HISTORICAL. BUT ISN'T THAT ALTERATION ALSO THEN CLASSIFIED AS CONTRIBUTING IF THE PROPERTY IS ON A CONTRIBU? YES. YEAH, IT GOES ALONG WITH THE PROPERTY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGN UP, UH, FOR 8 25 COLUMBIA. AND THAT'S MATTHEW FISHER. UM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME IN THE SPEAKER WHEN YOU, UH, COME TO THE PODIUM. MATTHEW FISHER, UH, APPLICANT FOR 8 2 5 COLUMBIA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR MAKING THE TIME AVAILABLE TO, UH, DISCUSS THIS PROPERTY AND THE APPLICATION. UM, DOCUMENT CAMERA PLEASE. I, UH, PREPARED A FEW SLIDES. UH, I THINK WE'RE GONNA TRY TO DISPLAY THEM ON THE DOCUMENT CAMERA. [00:15:03] UH, AS, AS CARRIE MENTIONED, I, I, UM, THE, THE PROJECT PROPOSES, UH, APPROXIMATELY 250 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE, THE EXISTING SECOND FLOOR STRUCTURE OVER A COVERED, UH, DECK. THIS IS THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE APPROACH FOR MEETING OUR, OUR GROWING FAMILIES. UH, TODAY'S NEEDS AND FUTURE NEEDS, UH, WANT TO REITERATE A FEW POINTS. THE PROJECT IS NOT VISIBLE AT ALL FROM THE STREET. THE PROJECT DOES NOT ALTER THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC STRUCTURE IN ANY WAY. UH, THE PROJECT HAS SUPPORT OF THE IMMEDIATE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS ON ALL SIDES AND OTHERS ON THE 800 BLOCK, INCLUDING DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE HOME. THE PROJECT ALIGNS WITH SEVERAL NEARBY HOMES IN SIZE SCALE, APPROXIMATELY A THIRD OF THE HOMES ON THE 800 BLOCK EXCEED FAR 43% OF THOSE HOMES THAT EXCEED FAR ARE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES. AND ABOUT A THIRD OF THE HOMES ON THE 800 BLOCK WOULD EXCEED THE, THE FINAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 8 2 5 COLUMBIA. ONCE THE IS COMPLETED, WE BELIEVE THE PROJECT MEETS ALL 11 CONDITIONS. UH, FOR, FOR, UH, THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 33, 2 41. THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE HOME. UM, THIS WOULD BE UNCHANGED POST EDITION. YOU, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE, UH, THE PROPOSED DECK, UH, IN THE SECOND FLOOR. UM, THE, YOU, YOU NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET IN ANY WAY. THIS IS THE REAR OF THE HOME, UH, THE EXISTING REAR OF THE HOME. THE PROPOSED, UH, ADDITION WOULD, UM, REPLACE THAT JULIET STYLE BALCONY THERE. 250 SQUARE FOOT WOULD, WOULD, UH, COME OUT THE, THE HOME WOULD NOT EXCEED FURTHER THAN THE BAY WINDOWS. YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE ANOTHER PHOTO. UH, NEXT, UM, THIS IS THE SIDE VIEW OF THE HOME OF THE IMMEDIATE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. WE'RE ONLY REPLACING WHERE THAT BRICK, YOU SEE WHERE THE BRICK IS THAT SEPARATES THE TURF FROM THE, UM, THE BRICK. THAT'S GONNA BE THE DECK. AND THEN THE, THE ADDITION IS GONNA LINE UP WITH THE NEIGHBOR'S HOME. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO EXCEED ANY FURTHER THAN THE NEIGHBOR'S HOME. AND IF YOU LOOK TO THE OTHER SIDE, THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY HAS A HOME THAT EXCEEDS FROM THE FRONT OF THE LOT TO THE REAR OF THE LOT. IT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THAT SIDE, UH, IN ANY WAY. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTIES. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE STRUCTURE TO I GUESS THE SOUTH SIDE, UH, THAT EXCEEDS THE FULL LENGTH OF THE LOT. UM, YOU CAN FINISH THE, UH, YEAH, THANK YOU. UM, AND THEN ON, ON THE NORTH SIDE, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE HOME WOULD BE THE ADDITION WOULD EXCEED, WOULD EXTEND TO EVEN. UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THE, THE AERIAL FOOTPRINT OF THE NEIGHBORING HOMES. NOW THIS IS THE CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS. UH, SORRY, THE NEXT SLIDE. UH, THIS IS THE CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS THAT HAS THE HOMES THAT EXCEED, UH, EXISTING FAR. UM, AND THE QUESTIONS ON THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES, UH, THERE ARE 2, 8 0 6, UH, I BELIEVE IS THE ONE THAT WAS MENTIONED. UH, AND THERE WAS ANOTHER CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THAT EXCEEDS FAR. UH, I BELIEVE IT IS 8 0 2. 8 0 2, UH, YES. 8 0 2, YES. UM, AND IN POST EDITION THERE'S SEVEN HOUSES THAT WOULD EXCEED. SO IF, IF WE LOOK AT JUST TOP TO BOTTOM, THIS IS ONLY THE 800 BLOCK. THERE'S 20 HOUSES ON THE BLOCK. EIGHT OF THEM ARE CON, ARE NON-CONTRIBUTING. THAT'S 40% OF THE HOMES, 12 OF THEM ARE CONTRIBUTING. THAT'S 60% OF THE HOMES, THREE OF THE CONTRIBUTING HOMES EXCEED FAR, UM, UH, SORRY, SEVEN HOUSES ON THE BLOCK EXCEED FAR. THREE OF THOSE HOMES ARE CONTRIBUTING. UM, AND THEN SEVEN OF THE HOMES WOULD EXCEED THE PROPOSED LIVING SQUARE FOOTAGE POST ADDITION. UH, AND SO THAT, THAT CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS IS TO SUGGEST, AND THAT I HAVE SOME APPENDIX SLIDES THAT PULL THE ORDINANCES WITH THE 11 UH, CONDITIONS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO REVIEW THEM TOGETHER. UM, I, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE APPEALS BOARD APPROVE THE, THE FULL EDITION. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? UM, DID YOU REACH OUT TO THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS HISTORIC ASSOCIATION AT ALL BEFORE SUBMITTING YOUR PROPOSED DESIGN? YES. YES I DID. DID THEY, DID THEY SUPPORT THE PROJECT? THEY SAID IT WAS UP TO THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE. THEY SAID IT DID. THEY, THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT EXCEED FAR AS KARA MENTIONED. UM, WHEN DID YOU PURCHASE THE HOME? IN 2002? TWO 2022 2022. OKAY. SO AFTER THE ADDITION, AFTER THE ADDITION WAS DONE, [00:20:01] DID YOUR REALTOR ADVISE YOU YOU WERE PURCHASING IN A, EXCUSE ME, IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT? WE WERE AWARE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT PROHIBITED. OKAY. UM, AND I'VE GOT A LONG HISTORY WITH THE BEING ON THE COMMISSION AND NOW ON THE APPEALS BOARD. AND I LIVE IN HEIGHTS SOUTH. WELL, MY BUSINESS, I SOLD MY HOUSE, MY BUSINESS IS STILL THERE. UM, PART OF THE REASON, SO YOU DIDN'T PURCHASE, YOU DIDN'T OWN THE HOUSE WHEN ALL THE WORKSHOPS WERE CONDUCTED, UH, IN THE HEIGHTS TO, TO REALLY PULL CONSENSUS OPINION, UH, IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ONE OF THE MAIN OBJECTIONS COMING OUT OF, OF THAT AND WHAT THEY DECIDED WAS APPROPRIATE AND WHAT WAS NOT. UM, THAT'S WHAT THE BASIS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ALL THE CONTRIBUTING HOUSES YOU'VE REFERENCED IN THE CONTEXT AREA THAT EXCEED FAR, IT'S ONLY THE ADDITIONS TO THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC HOME THAT PUT THEM OVER THAT THRESHOLD. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. SO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES REALLY DERIVED AT, TO PREVENT THE TYPE OF ADDITION THAT WAS DONE IN 2015. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I WAS ON THE COMMISSION BACK THEN, SO I REMEMBER QUITE WELL. IN FACT, WHEN THE 90 DAY WAIVER WENT AWAY, SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAD SIGNED PETITIONS TO ESTABLISH THE DISTRICTS, UH, WANTED TO WITHDRAW THEIR SUPPORT. BUT, UH, WERE UNABLE TO DO SO. UM, BUT NONETHELESS, I, I GOTTA SAY THAT I GOT, I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN GET BEHIND THE SUPPORT OF THE, THE TOTAL PROJECT BECAUSE OF THE, THE TWO CRITERIA, THE SETBACKS AND THE FAR THAT IT DOESN'T MEETS. SO OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THE GUIDELINES. THE HOUSE HAS TO MEET CONTEXT, AREA, SIZE AND SCALE, UH, OVER A THIRD OF THE HOMES. I KNOW I RECOGNIZE IT AS THE ADDITION. IT DOESN'T, THE, THE GUIDELINES, UM, REFER TO THE, THE BLOCK. UH, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE CONTEXTUAL AREA IS THE EXISTING BLOCK, THE BLOCK FACE. YEAH. AND, AND, AND SO THE, THE BLOCK FACE ITSELF, UM, A THIRD OF THE HOMES EXCEED, AND I RECOGNIZE THOSE ARE THE ADDITIONS, BUT THAT IS THE EXISTING AS-BUILT REALITY WE LIVE IN TODAY. UM, AND IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. TWO THIRDS OF THIS HOME IS AN ADDITION. UM, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE TOUCHING A NON HISTORIC PORTION OF THE HOME. IF I WAS MODIFYING THE HISTORIC PORTION OF THE HOME, I, I COMPLETELY U UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE PRE, YOU KNOW, THE INTENT OF THE PRESERVATION. THE, THE, THIS IS NON-VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, UM, AND MODIFYING A REALLY A NON HISTORIC STRUCTURE. UM, AND IT IS SMALLER THAN A THIRD OF THE HOMES ON THE BLOCK. UH, ROB, YOU ANOTHER TELL YOU, I THINK THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF MAYBE SOME VAGUENESS IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT ALTERATIONS TO CONTRIBUTING AND BLOCK FACE AND, AND ALL THAT. AND I KNOW IT DOES ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE CONTEXT AREA TO BEYOND JUST THE BLOCK FACE. BUT IT DOESN'T, I DON'T THINK THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ADEQUATELY PERHAPS CLARIFY THE ISSUE OF WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT HISTORICAL HOMES IN THE CONTEXT AREA. THAT IT'S, WHETHER IT'S REFERRING TO JUST THE ORIGINAL HISTORICAL HOME OR ALTERATIONS DONE TO IT. AND MAYBE THAT'S, UM, SOMETHING AT SOME POINT IN TIME IN THE FUTURE, IF DESIGN GUYS EVER TWEAKED, UH, GET CLARIFIED. CAN I ADD SOMETHING TO THIS OR DO WE HAVE TO LIKE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND GO BACK? BUT THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO THIS TOPIC. JUST STATE YOUR NAME. OKAY. STAFF PERSON, KARA QUIGLEY. UM, SO ACTUALLY ON PAGES ON PAGE 14 OR ONE DASH EIGHT OF THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES, THERE IS A NOTE THAT STATES PROPERTY OWNERS MAY PRESENT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SU SUPPLEMENT THEIR COA APPLICATION OR TO MAKE A CASE FOR CONSIDERING A DIFFERENT CONTEXT AREA OR ADJUSTED MEASURABLE STANDARDS. THE HHC WILL CONSIDER, BUT IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO AGREE WITH OR APPLY SUCH INFORMATION. SO THIS IS, I GUESS PRIMARILY IN REFERENCE TO THAT CONTEXT AREA. AND IT'S MEANT TO BE USED AS BEING COMPATIBLE WITH AND OR SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO OTHER PROJECTS. SO IN THIS CASE, WITH ALL OF THOSE OTHER, UM, PROJECTS THAT DO EXCEED FAR, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE OVER, THAT [00:25:01] IS THE REALITY OF THIS CONTEXT AREA IN THIS CASE. UM, BUT THEN THERE IS ANOTHER PORTION, UM, OF SECTION 33 DASH 2 47 OF THE ORDINANCE THAT OUTLINES THE EXEMPTIONS FOR A COA AND STATES UNDER SUBSECTION A TWO THAT A COA IS NOT REQUIRED FOR AN ALTERATION THAT IS OBSCURED FROM VIEW FROM THE STREET BY THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND NOT MERELY OBSCURED BY FENCING, LANDSCAPING, NON HISTORIC ADDITIONS OR OTHER IMPERMANENT OBSTRUCTIONS. SO THE PROPOSED ADDITION WOULDN'T MEET THAT PART, BUT THEN THERE IS THAT OTHER PORTION THAT I MENTIONED FROM THE GUIDELINES THAT KIND OF, YOU KNOW, ALLOWS A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW WITH THIS. I, UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, THIS BRINGS UP KIND OF TWO ISSUES THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH. ONE IS IN A BROAD WAY, UH, ALTERATIONS TO ADDITIONS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE HOW DO YOU REALLY JUDGE THEM? AND I KNOW YOU DISCUSSED LIKE, WELL THIS, IMAGINE IT FLOATING THERE WITHOUT IT. BUT I THINK ANOTHER WAY IS COULD IT BE APPROVED IN, IN TOTALITY AS A NEW, UH, ALTERATION, I THINK IS ANOTHER WAY TO, TO THINK OF IT. BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, ALTERING AN ALTERATION IS NOT STRICTLY SPEAKING KIND OF IN THE, UH, THE CONTEMPLATION OF WHAT THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNED FOR. SO THAT CAUSES SOME FRICTION, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? IT'S ALREADY HERE, I CAN ALTER IT, WHY NOT? I CAN'T SEE IT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT INTUITIVE RESPONSE TO IT. BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT OVERALL. IT'S LIKE, NOW THIS IS THE ADDITION, IS THIS ADDITION WITH THE CHANGES YOU'RE PROPOSING AN ACCEPTABLE ADDITION UNDER THE GUIDELINES. THAT'S HOW I WOULD THINK TO LOOK AT IT. AND THE OTHER ISSUE IS WHAT IF THE CONTEXT AREA HAS BEEN SO DEGRADED OVER TIME? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HOUSES ARE ALL FINE. I JUST MEAN DEGRADED IN TERMS OF THE HISTORIC CHARACTER AND THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURES. LIKE WHAT'S THE POINT OF, OF BEING SO STRICT ABOUT THIS, THIS HOUSE, IT'S STILL IN THIS DEGRADED CONTEXT AREA. AND THIS HAS COME UP BEFORE, WHAT A HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE DISTRICT OR A HOUSE WHERE, YOU KNOW, NOTHING IS LEFT AND THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT'S STILL HISTORIC. WHAT'S THE POINT OF SAVING IT? AND I JUST DON'T THINK, I MEAN, THERE'S A LITTLE WIGGLE ROOM IN THE ORDINANCE THERE THAT YOU CAN RECONSIDER IT, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN THIS CASE, THE WHOLE FAR AND MEASURABLE STANDARDS WERE PUT IN BECAUSE IT WAS FELT LIKE THIS, UH, EX EXCESSIVE ADDITIONS WERE REALLY HARMING THE CHARACTER. AND SO TO SAY THAT, WELL, THE CHARACTER'S ALREADY BEEN HARMED, LET'S JUST CONTINUE ON THAT ROAD, IS REALLY CONTRARY TO WHY THESE CHANGES WERE PUT IN. IT WAS TRY TO, TO SLOW IT DOWN AND, AND STOP ANY FURTHER, UH, EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER. SO I'M, I'M, I'M FULLY SYMPATHETIC WITH YOUR, YOUR, YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT THIS AND WHY IT'S A DIFFICULT ISSUE. BUT I I I THINK IF THE HHC CONSIDERED IT AND CONSIDERED, UH, THOSE OPTIONS AND CAME TO THIS DECISION, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON THEY'VE DONE ANYTHING WRONG. I, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO FURTHER DEGRADE THE I I I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, BEST AVAILABLE WORD. UM, THE, THE PROPOSED REAR PORCH, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE THE SAME EXTENSION OF THE, OF, OF THE ROOF LINE. UH, IT WOULD BE OF THE SAME SIMILAR MASS AND SCALE. AND, AND SO NOT, NOT SURE WHAT WHAT THE DISTINCTION WE'RE, WE'RE DRAWING IS, UM, AS THE SIZE OF THE HOME WOULD STILL BE EXTENDED. SO I, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK IF, IF YOU TORE DOWN THE ADDITION ENTIRELY AND HAD AN APPLICATION TO REBUILD IT EXACTLY AS IS, I THINK IT WOULD BE DENIED. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE ISSUE. YOU'RE, YOU'RE CONFRONTING. SO IT'S LIKE THAT IS NOT ANY LONGER AN ACCEPTABLE ADDITION. SO TO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN TWEAK IT AND SAY, I'M NOT MAKING ANY WORSE, BUT IT'S ALREADY NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE, UNDER THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE GUIDELINES AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE, I THINK. AND THAT'S A PROBLEM, THE COMMISSION FACE AND, AND YEAH, AND I, I GUESS THE, THE IN , I, UH, THE, THE, THE AS-BUILT REALITY THOUGH IS THE ADDITION IS NOT BEING TORN DOWN. WE'RE ACTUALLY IN FACT TRYING TO INVEST THAT THIS HOME IS PRESERVED IN ITS CURRENT STATE. I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S, WE'RE, WE'RE PLANNING TO DEEP DEEPEN OUR ROOTS IN THIS HOME AND PRESERVE IT FOR THE DURATION OF OUR FAMILY. IT'S, WE'RE NOT PLANNING TO FLIP THIS HOUSE. THIS IS, IS INTENDED TO NO, AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND, IT'S NOT ANY LACK OF PERSONAL SYMPATHY TO YOU AND COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING. I'M JUST TRYING TO APPLY THE, THESE GUIDELINES AND THE RULES. WE HAVE CHAIR, MAY I COMMENT? YES. THIS IS ROMAN MCALLEN, A HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, CITY OF HOUSTON. UM, [00:30:01] I JUST WANNA POINT OUT SOME OBSERVATIONS. OKAY. SO WHEN WE WENT TO HHC WITH THIS STAFF INITIALLY ANALYZED IT, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE, WE KNOW THAT THE HHC HAS ALLOWED, UM, A CAVEAT FOR, UM, ADDITIONS THAT FOR A HOUSE THAT'S ALREADY OVER THE FAR OR, OR AN ADDITION THAT TAKES IT OVER THE FAR AND THE, SO FAR THE TIME THAT THEY'VE SAID THAT'S OKAY FOR, IN THEIR MINDS WOULD BE FOR A DA ACCESS FOR ELEVATORS. AND SO WE'VE HAD A FEW ELEVATORS PUT IN. AND SO WITH THAT STAT'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO, UH, DENY THE ADDITION. I WILL SAY THAT, AND I ONLY, I'VE NOT BEEN HERE, DIDN'T WORK ON THIS LIKE COMMISSIONER HELLIER DID. AND, AND YOU KNOW, I'M FIVE YEARS INTO WORKING WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, BUT HISTORY IS, YOU KNOW, IMPORTANT. AND ONE THING I NOTICED THAT IT WASN'T UNTIL JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO THAT I NOTICED THE TEXT IN THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT CARA WAS REFERRING TO, WHERE IT SAYS THAT AN APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, UH, TO THE COMMISSION OR TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WITH THEIR APPLICATION, WHICH, UH, ASKED THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A DIFFERENT, UM, D DIFFERENT CONTEXT AREA OR TO, UM, UH, NOT APPLY THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS AS SUCH. THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE, UH, SHE'S HANDING IT TO ME NOW. AND JUST TO REITERATE IT, UH, TO MAKE A CASE, TO MAKE A CASE FOR CONSIDERING A DIFFERENT CONTEXT AREA OR ADJUSTED MEASURABLE STANDARDS, ACTUALLY, I HAVE TWO POINTS TO MAKE. SO THE POINT ON THAT, I JUST WANNA SAY HISTORICALLY I HADN'T EVEN SEEN THAT LANGUAGE PERSONALLY REALLY SEEN IT. I MEAN, REALLY PUT MY, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S IN A BOX ON ONE PAGE IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE WHOLE DOCUMENT. IT'S, THERE'S A LITTLE SHADED BOX. AND I, AND THAT INFORMATION ACTUALLY CHANGED. UM, THERE WAS A DECISION A FEW MONTHS AGO ON A SIDELINE, A SIDEWALL LENGTH ISSUE, AND THE COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE STASH RECOMMENDATION FOR, UM, ADJUSTED MEASURABLE STANDARDS THERE. UH, THE, UH, I'M GONNA FORGET THE OTHER PIECE I WANTED TO MAKE, UM, REGARDING, AND I JUST WANNA POINT OUT SO THAT THAT'S A LITTLE BIT HISTORY, ALL THAT TO SAY IT'S PLAUSIBLE THAT A DIFFERENT STAFF MIGHT HAVE SAID, WE RECOMMEND APPROVABLE, WE RECOMMEND ADJUSTED MEASURABLE STANDARDS GIVEN THAT THIS IS THERE. BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHERE WE LAID BECAUSE THE HISTORY THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED WITH THE HHC. THE OTHER THING IS TO COMMISSIONER HELLER'S POINT, I THINK IT'S INTERESTING, WE HAD A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH THE EXEMPTION. SO THE EXEMPTION SAYS, UH, OBSCURED FROM VIEW FROM THE STREET BY THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. AND WE, WHEN THAT ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WORD POPPED OUT, WE INITIALLY SAID, WELL, THAT JUST MEANS THAT ORIGINAL BUILDING. AND WE STILL THINK IT MEANS THAT. BUT THEN I, IT RAISED A QUESTION IN MY MIND WITH COMMISSIONER HELLER'S RAISED, IS THAT NOW THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE HAS AN ADDITION AND IT'S AN ADDITION TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, SO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE'S THERE. SO I THINK THERE, YOU KNOW, JUST WANNA POINT THAT OUT. UM, AND THEN IN THIS CASE, THE CONTEXT AREA DOES MATTER AND, UH, WHAT'S THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE BUILDING? THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. THEY ALL COME TO YOU, THEY HAVE THE APPLICANT COMING TO YOU, AND YOU HAVE THIS FLEXIBILITY, AND, AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT THOSE THINGS OUT. THANK YOU, ROMAN, JUST FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, I WANNA, I WAS LOOKING AT THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA. SO CURRENTLY THE BUILDING, UH, WITH THE ADDITION IS OVER FAR BY, SO YES. HOW, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IS IT ALREADY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ADDITION? IS IT ALREADY OVER WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE TODAY FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD? YES. SO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS 3,267 SQUARE FEET. UH, THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWABLE FOR A 6,600 SQUARE FOOT LOT IN THE HEIGHTS IS 29 0 4. SO THE HOUSE, AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, IS ALREADY 363 SQUARE FEET OVER FAR. UM, THE PLAN WOULD BE TO REMOVE 28 SQUARE FEET AND THEN ADD TWO 50. SO THE NEW TOTAL PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD BE 3,489, WHICH WOULD BE 585 SQUARE FEET OVER FAR. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER? OKAY, THANK YOU, SIR. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM OR A PROPOSED ACTION? UH, WELL, I HAVE A COMMENT. UH, COMMISSIONER ADMINISTER, UH, THE, GIVEN THE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, I LOOK AT GUIDELINES AS, YOU KNOW, GUIDELINES. THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY AN ORDINANCE HARD AND FAST AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE MITIGATING, UH, ASPECTS OF THIS APPLICATION HAVE TO DO WITH THE CONTEXT AREA AND WITH SUCH A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE [00:35:01] HOUSES ON THIS ONE BLOCK EXCEEDING THE FAR MAXIMUMS THAT ARE IN THE GUIDELINES RIGHT NOW. AND DUE TO THE FACT THAT WITH A HOUSE TODAY, AS IT IS WITH THE ADDITION, IT'S OBSCURED FROM THE STREET, I BELIEVE THAT THERE, IN MY MIND, THERE IS WIGGLE ROOM ON WHAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING AND NOT LOOKING TO A HARD AND FAST NUMERICAL COMPUTATION, BUT REALLY LOOKING AT THE CONTEXT OF OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN, UH, DISCUSSED THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORS, UH, THAT ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION. UM, I REALLY ASK THAT, YOU KNOW, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HERE, UH, EVALUATE THE WIGGLE ROOM IF THEY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY, BUT TO GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS AS PRESENTED IN THE CONTEXT AREA. AND BECAUSE OF THE, UM, THE VISUAL IMPACT, UH, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THIS ADDITION WOULD BE ZERO. UM, I WOULD BE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH MR. EDM BEDMINSTER. I, SORRY. OH, RA BLAND. UM, I WOULD BE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH MR. BEDMINSTER. I THINK THAT BECAUSE THIS WAS ALREADY A HOUSE THAT WAS GRANDFATHERED IN, SO I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE, THE CONCEPT OF WHEN THAT ADDITION REALLY STARTS TO FACTOR INTO THESE CALCULATIONS. I THINK BECAUSE OF THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WIGGLE ROOM THAT THAT BOX ALLOWS FOR, UM, AND BECAUSE OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT OF THIS STREET, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD BE INCLINED, INCLINED TO APPROVE OF THIS PROJECT WHERE IT COMING FROM A DIFFERENT STREET IN THE DISTRICT. BUT BECAUSE THIS SPECIFIC STREET ALREADY HAS OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE VERY SIMILARLY ALTERED, I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD DEGRADE THE OVERALL CONTEXT OF THE DEC OF THE DISTRICT. UM, I THINK THE ONE THING THAT I WAS REALLY LOOKING FOR, AND I APPRECIATE HAVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT OR AT LEAST THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR SUPPORT, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IN CASES LIKE THIS THAT THE APPLICANT GO TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT TO EITHER SOLICIT, THERE'S NOBODY TO GO TO STAFF, THERE'S NOBODY TO GO TO. OKAY. IT'S STAFF. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. UNDERSTOOD. UM, ALL RIGHT, THEN I, YEAH, JUST THE POINT BEING THAT I, UH, WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE PROJECT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION OF ACTION ON THIS PROJECT? COMMISSIONER EDM MINSTER, I MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED. I, IF I CAN CLARIFY, IS THAT TO OVERTURN THE YEAH. DECISION AND OVERTURN THE DECISION? THE HCHC VIRA BLAND, I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF SECONDING THAT MOTION. UM, BECAUSE, UH, YOU, YOUR, YOUR PROPOSAL BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT, I WOULD LI I WOULD PREFER US TO DEFINE THE SPECIFIC REASONS WHY YOU ARE GOING WITH THAT ACTION SO THAT IN THE FUTURE WHEN PROJECTS GO THROUGH, THEY HAVE A PREDICTABILITY. I, I DO THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. IF YOU, IF YOU ARE FINDING THIS, THEN THE COMMISSION WILL NEED TO BE GUIDED BY THESE, THIS INTERPRETATION THAT YOU ARE MAKING ON THIS FOR SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES, UH, I'M MAKING THIS, UH, MOTION. I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE MOTION I'M MAKING THIS MOTION, UH, DUE TO THE CONTEXT AREA, THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND THAT THERE IS ZERO VISIBILITY OF THE ADDITION, UH, FROM THE STREET. UH, YOU AGREE, YOU SAY, I DROVE BY THE HOUSE YESTERDAY AND LIKE IN ALMOST ANY HOUSE, YOU CAN SEE THE BACK CORNERS OF THAT, OF THAT ADDITION. YOU HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, GET THE RIGHT ANGLE AND YOU DON'T SEE MUCH OF IT, BUT THAT IT'S ZERO VISIBILITIES. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AERIAL VISIBILITY FROM THE STREET. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. ADMINISTER. AYE. VIRA BLAND. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. UH, ELLIOT. NO. HELL, YOU'RE OPPOSED? UM, BARTEL? NO. UH, THAT, UH, THE HHC, THAT MEANS THE HH NO, NO. WELL, NO. GO AHEAD AND, NO, NO. YOU NEED A DIFFERENT MOTION THAT THIS JUST MEANS THE MOTION. THAT MOTION FAILED. SO THAT MOTION FAILED. IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION AT THIS TIME FOR THIS PROJECT? UM, MAKE A [00:40:01] MOTION TO, UH, UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE HHC. HELL, YOUR SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. ELLIOT. AYE HELL, YOUR AYE BARTELL. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED EDM ADMINISTER NO. VIRA BLAND, NO. UH, MOTION BY ELLIOT PASSES UPHOLDING THE HHC UH, DECISION ITEM. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS FOR 1 1 3 8 FUGATE STREET. UH, WOULD RECOMMEND STAFF, UH, STAFF'S REC, UH, DISCUSSION? GOOD MORNING. MEMBERS OF THIS APPEALS BOARD, THIS IS STAFF PERSON TERRENCE JACKSON, AND TODAY I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM TWO. UH, THE ITEM IS 1138 WEST FUGATE. A CONTRIBUTING HOME LOCATED IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT BUILT CIRCA 1925. THE PROPERTY INCLUDES A HISTORIC 1,216 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY WOOD FRAME, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SITUATED ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT. INTERIOR, I MEAN EXTERIOR LOT. ON MARCH 3RD, 2025, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED FOR A COA. AND ON MARCH 17TH, 25, 20 25, STAFF MET, MET THE AGENT AND THE APPLICANT AT THE RESIDENCE TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED PROJECT. ON APRIL 1ST, STAFF AND THE CITY OF HOUSTON STRUCTURAL INSPECTOR MET WITH THE APPLICANT TO DIS DISCUSS THE CONDITION OF THE BRICK. ON APRIL 10TH, THE HHC ACTED ON A COA TO APPROVE THE COA WITH CONDITIONS. AND ON APRIL 11TH, 2025, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THE REQUEST TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE HHC. AT THE THURSDAY, APRIL 10TH HHC MEETING, THE APPLICANT PROPOSED A REAR 1,192 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY ADDITION, BRINGING THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE RE OF THE RESIDENCE TO 2,308 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WAS AS FOLLOWS, DEMOLISHED THE EXISTING GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE ON A SEPARATE COA CONSTRUCT. A TWO STORY ADDITION, CONSI CONSISTING OF REAR FIRST FLOOR EDITION OF 364 SQUARE FEET, WITH A SECOND STORY OVER THE TOP OF 728 SQUARE FEET, TOTALING 2,308 SQUARE FEET. THEY ALSO PROPOSED TO REPLACE NON-ORIGINAL, A NON-ORIGINAL SECONDARY FRONT DOOR WITH NEW WINDOW THAT MATCHES THE ADJACENT WINDOWS TO BE INSET AND RECESS. THEY ALSO PROPOSED TO REMOVE THE EXISTING BRICK, WHICH HAS BECOME COMPROMISED OVER TIME AND REPLACED WITH ONE 17 SIDING. THE, IN ADDITION TO HAVE SEVEN O OVER 12 ROOF SLOPE WITH A 26 FOOT ZERO INCH RIDGE HEIGHT AND A 19 FOOT RIDGE HEIGHT, I MEAN, UH, EVE HEIGHT. THEY ALSO PROPOSED TO REPLACE THE DAMAGED WINDOWS WITH INSET AND RECESS WOOD WINDOWS, AND REPAIR THE EXISTING WINDOWS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN, UH, WOOD RUT. AND THEY ALSO PROPOSED TO REMOVE THE INSET AT THE EXISTING DOUBLE DOORS AT THE WEST ELEVATION. AT THE TIME, STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE ROOF WRAPPED TAILS ON THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE REMAIN CLOSED AND THE WINDOWS MUST BE REPAIRED RATHER THAN REPLACED. AND I HAVE TWO STATEMENTS. ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14TH, STAFF RECEIVED A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY THAT I'LL READ INTO THE RECORD. WE ARE APPEALING ONE ASPECT OF THE COA, WHICH REFERS TO THE APPLICANT CAN INSTALL FASCIA BOARD AND A SUITABLE SCRATCH FACE BRICK TO BE INSTALLED AT THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. THE ORIGINAL BRICK HOME WAS AN EXCESSIVE, EXCESSIVE DISREPAIR WITH MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF THE BRICK COMING APART FROM THE HOUSE AND BREAKING OFF WITH VERY LITTLE EFFORT. THE BRICK WAS IN SUCH BAD CONDITION, CONDITION THAT ONE OF OUR CHILDREN WHO WAS PLAYING ON THE PORCH WAS ALMOST CRUSHED BY THE FALLING BRICK STAFF DETERMINED THAT THE BRICK NEEDED TO BE REMOVED AND THE BRICK WAS REMOVED AND STACKED IN THE YARD FOR WHOLE PIECES THAT WEREN'T DAMAGED. IN DEMOLITION. DEMOLITION STAFF AGAIN VISITED THE SITE AND DETERMINED THERE WAS SO LITTLE OF THE BRICK LEFT, THAT IT WOULDN'T COVER THE WHOLE ORIGINAL HOUSE AND COULDN'T BE MATCHED EXACTLY WITH NEW BRICK STAFF SAID THAT THE BRICK COULD BE DISPOSED OF AND OR, AND OUR GC ON THE SITE ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES VERBALLY IF THAT WOULD BE OKAY. THEY INDICATED YES, GC FOLLOWED THE GUIDANCE AND THE [00:45:01] BRICK WAS DONATED TO A BUSINESS THAT THEN DISPOSED OF THE BRICK. WE FEEL THAT SINCE WE FOLLOWED THE ADVICE OF STAFF TO DISPOSE OF THE BRICK, WE SHOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO FIND BRICK NOW TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. WHEN WE HAD SOME BRICK ON HAND PRIOR TO DISPOSAL, WHICH WOULD BE A GREAT COST TO US, WE SUBMITTED PLANS TO THE HAHC THAT HAD THE SIDES OF THE ORIGINAL HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ONE 17 SIDING CONSISTENT WITH OTHER HISTORIC HOMES IN THE AREA, THE PLANS ONLY HAD BRICK ON THE PORCH COLUMN AND THE CHAIR RAIL ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. IN SUMMARY, THE APPEAL IS TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL HHC SUBMISSION AND NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE INSTALLING THE BRICK OVER ALL THE SURFACES OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. WE ARE OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS ON OTHER OPTIONS OTHER THAN BRICKING THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL HOUSE. AND FOR THE SECOND STATEMENT. ON FRIDAY MARCH, MARCH 16TH, STAFF RECEIVED A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE, FROM STRUCTURAL INSPECTOR PETE STOCKTON, TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD, I HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT THE UPCOMING APPLICATION FOR AN ADDITION AT 1138 WEST FUGATE IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT BY THE HISTORIC PRES PRESERVATION OFFICE. TERRACE JACKSON SAID THAT THE, THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE BRICK CLADDING UPON ARRIVAL, I NOTICED THAT THERE WERE AREAS WHERE THE BRICK VENEER HAD FALLEN AWAY FROM THE WOOD FRAME BUILDING. CLOSE EXAMINATION SHOWED A COMPLETE LACK OF BRICK TIES AND THAT THE SPREAD FOOTING SUPPORTING THE BRICK WAS BROKEN IN SEVERAL PLACES. I OBSERVED THAT THE EXISTING MASONRY WAS BEYOND REPAIR AND WOULD REQUIRE REMOVER AND REINSTALLATION. SEVERAL WEEKS LATER, TERRENCE AND I STOPPED AT THE SITE AND HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE OWNER. I SHARED MY PREVIOUS OBSERVATION WITH THE OWNER. FURTHER, I LET HIM KNOW THAT THE BLEND OF COLORS AND WIRE CUT TEXTURE WERE UNIQUE TO THE BUILDINGS FROM THIS PERIOD. ALSO BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, WHERE, WHERE, WHERE HE TO, WHERE HE TO SAVAGE THE BRICK AND PREP IT FOR FREE FOR REUSE, HE WOULD LOSE APPROXIMATELY 25 TO 50% OF THE MATERIAL THROUGH BREAKAGE. THE OWNER ASKED IF HE COULD DONATE THE BRICK TO THE SALVAGE MASON MASONRY ENTITY AND I SAID THAT IT MAY BE AN OPTION DEPENDING ON THE SCOPE OF HIS PROJECT AND THE WILL OF HOUSTON AND THE WILL OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC COMMISSION. FURTHER, I LET HIM KNOW THAT MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE COMMISSION WAS THAT OFTEN THEY DENIED PROJECTS THAT I THOUGHT SHOULD BE APPROVED AND THAT THEY APPROVE PROJECTS THAT I BELIEVE HAVE BEEN DENIED. TERRANCE JACKSON WEIGHED IN THAT APPROVAL OF THE OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE WAS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE COMMISSION AND THAT WE WOULD NOT SPEAK FOR THEM. TERRANCE AND I LOOKED AT SOME OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK BEFORE WE LEFT. AT SOME POINT, THE OWNER AGAIN BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF THE DISPOSITION OF THE MASONRY. HE SEEMED TO BE IN A HURRY TO MOVE THIS PROJECT ALONG AND SEEMED TO BE PUSHING US TO GIVE HIM A DEFINITIVE ANSWER ON WHAT TO DO WITH THIS BRICK. I TOLD HIM THAT THE VENEER HAD FAILED AND WOULD NEED TO COME OFF REGARDLESS OF ITS REUSE. HE AGAIN ASKED IF HE COULD DONATE THE MATERIAL. I SAID, YES, THAT MAY BE AN OPTION IF YOU CAN'T MATCH IT. TERRENCE AGAIN REMINDED THE OWNER THAT WHATEVER IS TO HAPPEN, THE COMMISSION WOULD NEED TO APPROVE ANY SCOPE OF WORK WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THIS CONCLUDES THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS BOTH FROM THE OWNER AND FROM MR. STOCKTON ON APRIL 10TH, THE HAHC RULED TO ACCEPT THE PROJECT AS SUBMITTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE OPEN RAFTER TAILS REMAIN THE APPLICANT APPLICANT CAN INSTALL FASCIA BOARD AND THAT THE, THAT A SUITABLE SCRATCH FACE BRICK TO BE INSTALLED AT THREE SIDES OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THE OWNERS ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. UH, TERRENCE? YES. SO THE ONLY ITEM THAT'S IN QUESTION IS, IS FOR THE, FOR THE VIEWERS OF THIS EVENT. THE ONLY ITEM IN QUESTION AT THIS TIME IS THE BRICK VENEER ON THE CONTRIBUTING PART OF THE STRUCTURE. YES, SIR. THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UH, COMMISSIONER UPMINSTER, UH, WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF A BRICK LEDGE WHATSOEVER? YES, SIR. THERE, THERE WAS. UM, BUT IT, IT WAS SO COMPROMISED IT THAT IT WOULD, UM, I MEAN THAT'S PART THE MAIN REASON WHY THAT AND THE, THERE BEING NO BRICK TIES THAT THE BRICK WAS, UH, FALLING OVER, BUT THERE WAS A BRICK LEDGE. YES. IT IT COMPROMISE AS IT MAY BE. YES SIR. YES. YES. IT WAS VERY COMPROMISED. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, UM, AND THE OWNER CAN SPEAK TO THIS MORE THAN I CAN, BUT UM, THERE ARE, THERE WERE, UM, THERE WAS GRASS GROWING OVER IT, WHICH YEAH, GO FIGURE. I MEAN, YOU, IT'S REALLY SOMETHING HARD TO IMAGINE, BUT THERE WAS GRASS GROWING OVER IT. UM, SO, AND I, [00:50:01] I BELIEVE I MAY HAVE PHOTOS IN THE STAFF REPORT. JUST GIMME ONE SECOND TO THAT POINT, UM, I WAS READING THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE COMMISSION MEETING. YES SIR. COMMISSIONER, UM, MCNEIL COMMENTED ON THE, THE STABILITY, IF YOU WILL, UM, OF A BRICK LEDGE ON A APPEARING BEAM HOME VERSUS A SLAB ON GRADE. YES SIR. BECAUSE IT'S SO INDEPENDENT OF IT. YES SIR. SIR. SO TO RE BRICK THIS HOUSE, THEY'LL ALSO HAVE TO REDO THAT. YES, SIR. WHICH I WANNA MAKE SURE I POINT OUT, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE ONE 17. I MEAN, ONCE I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH PETE STOCKTON, UM, I MEAN, WE REALIZED THAT THEY WERE ONLY GONNA SAVE 25 TO 50% OF THE BRICK. LIKE HE, LIKE HE STATED, BUT IT WAS ALSO GONNA, IT WAS GONNA BE A, A HEFTY COST FOR THE OWNERS, IF YOU WILL. SORRY. AND I CAN'T SEEM TO LOCATE THE PHOTOS, BUT, UM, IF YOU JUST LOOK AT, I MEAN, I GUESS THE BEST YOU CAN GET IS PAGE 25 OF 29 OF THE, I MEAN, THIS MIGHT JUST BE ON THE STAFF REPORT. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT I BELIEVE IT'S PAGE 53, UM, THAT HAS THE CHIMNEY. UM, IF YOU LOOK JUST TO THE LEFT OF THE CHIMNEY, CHIMNEY AND, AND IT, IT, IT'S JUST, IT WAS IN REALLY BAD SHAPE. OR IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE ABOVE, UM, I MEAN YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S NOTHING THERE AND AT ONCE THE BRICK WAS REMOVED. SO, UM, I MEAN I, I FEEL STAFF FEELS, UM, I WEIRD EVEN CALLING IT A BRICK LEDGE TO BE TOTALLY HONEST. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DO HAVE, UH, TWO SPEAKERS. THANK YOU TERRENCE. WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR THIS. THE, AND I'M CALLING 'EM IN THE ORDER I WAS GIVEN THEM. SO, UM, THE FIRST SPEAKER IS TABITHA HENSLEY. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS TABITHA HENSLEY. I'M THE OWNER. UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC I'D LIKE TO SAY, BUT I WILL, UH, TAKE QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE CLARIFIED. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. HENSLEY? THANK YOU MS. HENSLEY. WELL ACTUALLY I, I DO, I'M SORRY. . UM, UH, I THINK YOU SAID IN YOUR APPEAL THAT YOU'RE OPEN TO OTHER KIND OF POSSIBILITIES, SUGGESTIONS, AND I'M NOT A CONTRACTOR LIKE SOME PEOPLE ON THE THE BOARD OR HHC, BUT, UH, I THINK FROM WHAT I COULD TELL, THEIR MAIN CONCERN WAS A VISUAL COMPATIBILITY OF, OF, UH, YOUR, YOUR, UH, PROPOSAL COMPARED TO THE HISTORIC NATURE OF IT. BUT THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU GOTTA PUT BACK BRICK AND I KNOW WE'RE CALLING IT BRICK VENEER 'CAUSE I GUESS IT'S ONE FULL SIZE BRICK. AND I'M JUST WONDERING, DID Y'ALL DISCUSS OR EXPLORE ANY POSSIBILITY TO MAKE IT SOME KIND OF, UH, SIDING OR THIN VENEER OR EVEN PAINTING OF SOME KIND THAT WOULD TRY TO GET MORE VISUALLY COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY THERE? HAS THAT BEEN CONSIDERED OF, OF THE, OF THIS? SO WHAT WE WERE PROPOSED WAS ONE 17 SIDING. RIGHT. UM, SO JUST TO CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION HERE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PUTTING UP A BRICK AND THEN LIKE PAINTING IT OR TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE VISUALLY? UM, I'M TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING 'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND ACTUALLY DOING THE BRICK WOULD REQUIRE A SIGNIFICANT KIND OF RE UM, MORE THAN JUST APPLYING BRICK. RIGHT. OKAY. BUT I, I THINK THERE ARE SOME PRODUCTS, AND AGAIN, I'M NOT THE ONE TO REALLY TO DETERMINE THIS, WHERE YOU CAN BASICALLY APPLY THEM OR MAKE VISUALLY THE, YOUR, YOUR KIND OF SIDING WALL OR YOUR, YOUR BASIC, UH, WALL. INSTEAD OF PUTTING SIDING, YOU PUT OVER SOME OTHER MATERIAL THAT'S NOT FULL BRICK, BUT WE'LL BE VISUALLY COMPATIBLE AND RESEMBLE BRICK IS THAT WE, WE DID NOT EXPLORE THAT, TO BE HONEST. IT SEEMED REASONABLE TO PUT UP ONE 17 SIGNING, WHICH IS VERY COMMON ON MANY OF THESE, THESE HOMES IN THE AREA. RIGHT. IT SEEMED CONSISTENT WITH THE FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY IN NOR HILL. SO WE, WE WANTED TO KEEP SOME BRISK BRICK ASPECTS ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE, THE COLUMN AND THE CHAIR WILL, WILL THINK, UM, LOOK QUITE GOOD THAT WAY. BUT [00:55:01] AS FAR AS THE THE ONE 17 SITING, IT JUST SEEMED THE MOST REASONABLE SOLUTION, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT GETTING TOO COMPLICATED. SURE. AND YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT ALONE STAFF AGREED WITH YOU. IT JUST, I'M TRYING TO, YOU KNOW RIGHT. EXPLORE, WRESTLE WITH WHAT, WHAT HC WHAT OBJECTION WAS. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH. MR. ER'S POINT, THERE IS THIN BRICK PRODUCT ON THE MARKET THAT DON'T REQUIRE AS MUCH SUPPORT. UM, TWO PROBLEMS WITH IT IN THIS APPLICATION THOUGH, ONE IS I HAVE YET TO SEE A THIN BRICK AND A, UH, SCRATCH FACE FINISH. MM-HMM . MM-HMM . UM, COLOR-WISE, I DON'T KNOW. THE OTHER THING IS YOU'RE CHANGING THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL, SO NOW ALL YOUR WINDOWS ARE GONNA PROJECT OUT YEAH. PAST THE SURFACE OF THAT THIN BRICK. YEAH. THERE, THERE ARE SOLUTIONS. WE DO HAVE TO DO SOME BUILD OUT, UH, TO DEAL WITH THAT. I CAN LET, UH, THE OTHER SPEAKER SPEAK IF YOU WANT, BUT WE, WE DO HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT. AND I'M NOT A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, BUT I THINK THAT THE WEIGHT OF AN APPLIED BRICK TO THE SIDEWALL WOULD ALSO REQUIRE STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE THE SIDING THAT'S BEHIND THE BRICK WAS NOT DESIGNED TO HOLD ADDITIONAL WEIGHT, UH, ON IT. AND WE WOULD HAVE TO, THEY WOULD'VE TO PUT SEVERAL LAYERS OF STUFF ON TOP OF THE EXISTING BUILDING IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT OF THE, OF THE BRICK VENEER. YEAH. VERA BLAND, THAT WAS GONNA BE MY CONCERN. IF WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT APPLYING BRICKS DIRECTLY TO THE STRUCTURE, ARE WE NOW DOING MORE DAMAGE TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE ITSELF THAN, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF SOMETHING? WELL, ANOTHER POINT TO THAT IS BRICK IS DESIGNED WHEN YOU SEE SOME OF THE PICTURES WITH THE AIR GAP IN BETWEEN TO ALLOW MOISTURE TO, TO ESCAPE BECAUSE BRICK IS NOT WATERPROOF. IT'S DESIGNED TO LET WATER FLOW AS IT GETS THROUGH THERE. AND IF YOU'RE APPLYING IT DIRECTLY TO THE SHEATHING ON THE HOUSE, UH, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE ELIMINATING THAT, UM, AIR GAP. MM-HMM . AND POTENTIAL WATER INTRUSION PROBLEMS AND ROTTING OF THE SHIPLAP SHEETING AND SO FORTH. IT, IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST PUTTING BRICK BACK UP, I GUESS IS WHAT, WHAT MY PERSPECTIVE IS. WADE, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND SPEAKER? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. HENSLEY? THANK YOU. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME IN THE SPEAKER. SECOND. GOOD MORNING. MY SECOND. LEMME CALL YOU FIRST. THE, THE SECOND SPEAKER I HAVE IS, UH, KEVIN SIMMONS. CORRECT. YEAH. SO JUST STATE YOUR NAME IN THE GOOD MORNING. I'M KEVIN SIMMONS HOMEOWNER. THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IS IT, UM, THE COST OF REPLACING THE BRICK LEDGE, UH, COMPLETELY LIFTING THE HOUSE OFF OF ITS EXISTING PIERS TO REPLACE THAT. UM, THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE WEREN'T PREPARED FOR. I HAVE DONE RESEARCH ON TRYING TO FIND SIMILAR BRICK AND THE ONLY THING I CAN FIND IN SCRATCH FACE WAS A COMMERCIAL STYLE BRICK, WHICH WAS AN INCH NARROWER, UM, THAN THE ORIGINAL BRICK. SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE TRYING TO GO WITH HISTORICS, UH, RECOMMENDATION OR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. I'M SORRY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. SIMMONS? MR. SIMMONS, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY MOTIONS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? I, I GUESS, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT EVERYONE'S SAYING ABOUT THE WEIGHT OF A THIN VENEER BRICK, BUT I MEAN, IF VISUAL COMPATIBILITY, MY PROBLEM WITH THE WHAT THE HHC DID, I, I BELIEVE THEY'RE RIGHT. IT NEEDS TO BE VISUALLY COMPATIBLE, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE CORRECT IN SAYING YOU HAVE TO PUT BACK BRICK AND MAYBE THAT'S JUST AN IMPOSSIBLE NEEDLE TO THREAD. BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK EVEN JUST, EVEN JUST IF IT'S PAINTED, I KNOW THIS IS SORT OF A SORT OF JOKE. I MEAN IT LOOK TERRIBLE. I'M JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, I LIKE, I LIKE THE APPLICANT TO HAVE A CHANCE TO EXPLORE WAYS TO MAKE IT VISUALLY COMPATIBLE WITHOUT HAVING TO ACTUALLY, UH, RESTRUCTURE THE HOUSE AND PUT UP ACTUAL BRICK. NOW MAYBE NO ONE ELSE THINKS THAT'S A THING TO WORRY ABOUT AND THIS IS THE ISSUE'S SIMPLER THAN THAT. BUT TO ME THAT'S THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH WHAT THE HHC DID. WAS IT SAY IT HAS TO BE BRICK. 'CAUSE REALLY WHAT IT NEEDS TO HAVE TO BE IS VISUALLY COMPATIBLE WITH BRICK. I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT I DO WANNA CLARIFY SOMETHING. THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FA BOARD. IT'S JUST THE BRICK. THE BRICK, OKAY. YES, THEY ACTUALLY WANTED THE FA BOARD, SO THEY, THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED ON THAT PORTION. IT'S JUST THE BRICK THAT THEY'RE IN. QUESTION ABOUT. THEN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, I'M NOT SURE HOW TO WORD IT. GRANT THE APPLICATION TO USE ONE 17 SIDING IN LIEU OF BRICK RETAINING THE FASCIA BOARD REQUIREMENT. [01:00:02] DOES THAT ADDRESS ALL THE POINTS? YES, SIR. OKAY. I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION. AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. HELLER. AYE. VIERA BLAND. AYE. M ADMINISTER. AYE. BARTELL. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? YEAH. AND I, I'M, NO, JUST BECAUSE I THINK VISUAL COMPATIBILITY IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT OTHERWISE I'M GLAD YOU'RE GETTING INTO YOUR PROJECT. , UH, MOTION, UH, V ROB HELLER, UH, PASSES. THANK YOU. SO MR. ELLIOT, WAS THAT A NO, THAT WAS A NO. OKAY. WE DID PULL, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS OUT OF ORDER EARLIER. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS? DOES ANYONE ON THE COM ON THE BOARD HAVE UH, COMMENTS? MR. CHAIR? I'LL APOLOGIZE FOR THE LEGISLATURE KEEPING ME, UM, THIS MORNING AND DELAYING MY ATTENDANCE. UM, WELL I BROUGHT A, WHEN, WHEN THEY CALL FOR AMENDMENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING READY TO GO INTO CONFERENCE. I'VE GOTTA GET 'EM TO STAFF. I'M SORRY. WELL, I BROUGHT A THING IN PUBLIC COMMENTS, SO WE USE THAT FIRST. SO THANK YOU. UM, HEARING NO MORE COMMENTS, I'M ADJOURNING THIS MEETING OF THE HOUSTON PRESERVATION APPEALS BOARD. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.