[Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission on September 11, 2025.]
[00:00:14]
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2025.
TODAY'S MEETING OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
I AM CHAIR DAVID HICK TO VERIFY WE HAVE A QUORUM.
UM, I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER, UH, JONES WILL BE ABSENT TODAY.
COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR IS NOT PRESENT CURRENTLY AND HAD TO GO TO AN EVENT CHAIR IS PRESENT.
MR. COSGROVE? PRESENT? MR. DEL PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER SMITH? WELL, I SHOULD, I SHOULD, UM, YES.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS PRESENT AND OUR ACTING, UH, SECRETARY.
UM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT WILLIAMSON.
UM, I WILL START WITH THE CHAIR'S REPORT AND AS, SO, UM, AS IF YOUR FREQUENT FLYERS HERE IN THE AUDIENCE.
UM, UM, WE'VE HAD SOME NEW MEMBERS JOIN THE COMMISSION AND I THINK THE DIRECT DIRECTOR WILL WILL SPEAK ABOUT THAT.
SO, UM, SO, UM, BUT WHAT I'M GONNA FOCUS ON RIGHT NOW IS JUST THE SPEAKER RULES.
UM, THIS MEETING CAN BE VIEWED ON HTV, ALTHOUGH VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION OPTIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE.
MEETINGS START ABOUT A MINUTE OR SO AFTER THE SCHEDULED TIME TO ALLOW THE HTV BROADCAST TO GO LIVE.
SPEAKERS, IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM, PLEASE FAIL OUT THE SPEAKER FORMS, UH, BEFORE THE ITEM IS CALLED AND TURNED INTO STAFFED NEAR THE FRONT DOOR.
THE SPEAKER RULES ARE POSTED ON THE AGENDA AND ARE AT MY DISCRETION.
APPLICANTS WILL MAY OPEN AND SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES.
YOU MAY ALSO BE RECOGNIZED TO CLOSE WITH ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES.
I MAY CALL UPON YOU FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS.
OTHER SPEAKERS MAY SPEAK UP, MAY SPEAK ONE TIME, UP TO TWO MINUTES WHEN I RECOGNIZE YOU TO SPEAK.
UH, PLEASE NOTE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS, UH, AFTER STAFF'S INITIAL PRESENTATION, I WILL OPEN, UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
UM, UM, PLEASE HOLD YOUR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF UNTIL, UH, WE HAVE OUR, UH, DELIBERATION DELIBERATIONS, UM, UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC, UM, UM, HEARING.
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS ONE TIME AFTER AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT MEETING OF, OF THAT, OF THAT DISCUSSION.
AND WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR HICK COMMISSION MEMBERS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
I'M ROBERT WILLIAMSON, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION, AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM OUR REPORT TODAY, I HAVE SEVERAL BOARD MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS BASED ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION LAST WEEK.
FIRST, I WANNA CONGRATULATE OUR FOUR REAPPOINTED COMMISSIONERS.
SO, COMMISSION POSITION ONE IS OUR ARCHEOLOGIST, ASHLEY JONES, NOT HERE TODAY.
POSITION THREE, ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN CHANTELLE BLAKELY, POSITION FIVE, REGISTERED ARCHITECT DAVID HICK, AND ALSO ACTING CHAIR POSITION SEVEN REAL ESTATE APPRAISER, JOHN COSGROVE.
NEXT, I WANNA WELCOME OUR NEW NINE COMMISSIONERS TO THEIR FIRST HAHC MEETING AFTER BEING SWORN IN EARLIER TODAY.
POSITION TWO, WE HAVE A PROFESSIONAL HISTORIAN, CARL SMITH, POSITION FOUR, CULTURAL HISTORY ORGANIZATION, REPRESENTATIVE ZION ESCOBAR, NOT HERE.
POSITION SIX, COMMERCIAL BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE DAVID HILL, POSITION EIGHT, REMODELER BUILDER, SAM SEIDEL, POSITION NINE, PRESERVATION SPECIALIST.
CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT BROWNING, POSITION 11.
CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BROBECK, POSITION 12.
CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG GARCIA AND POSITION 13 CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE BECKY DAVIS.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU GOING FORWARD.
BUT FOR THE RECORD, AND, UH, FINALLY, I WANNA RECOGNIZE THREE CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS WHO WERE NOT REAPPOINTED AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE TERMS EXPIRED, BUT SERVED IN THE BOARD THROUGH OUR LAST MEETING ON AUGUST 14TH.
THEY WERE NOT RECOGNIZED AT OUR LAST MEETING BECAUSE WE WERE NOT YET AWARE THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE REAPPOINTED THOSE MEMBERS ARE, OR WERE, I SHOULD SAY.
A TWO TERM MEMBER POSITION 12 CHARLES STAAVA, A THREE TERM MEMBER AND POSITION 13 BEN KUSH, A THREE TERM MEMBER.
THESE THREE MEMBERS HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE
[00:05:01]
COMMISSION AND HOUSTON'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION EFFORTS.AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, I WANNA THANK THEM FOR THEIR COMMITMENT TO THE COMMISSION AND THE SERVICE TO THE CITY.
IN CLOSING, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL THE HOUSTON PRESERVATION OFFICE HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6 OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
WE DON'T HAVE, UM, MAYORS LIAISON REPORT TODAY, SO WE'LL MOVE ON.
NEXT ITEM IS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 14TH, 2025 HAHC MEETING MINUTES.
UM, I RECOGNIZE THAT ONLY THREE OF THE FOLKS IN THIS ROOM WERE HERE FOR THAT MEETING.
SO, UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE MEMBERS THAT WERE HERE NOT HEARING? IS OUR MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES? I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES.
IS THERE COMMISSIONER? LIKELY? IS THERE A SECOND? A SECOND BY DEFAULT.
ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? THAT MOTION PASSES AND WE'LL MOVE ON.
UM, SO THE NEXT ITEM ON THIS AGENDA, UH, WITH THIS NEW, UM, THIS LARGELY NEW, UH, COMMISSION WILL BE, UH, ITEM A, WHICH WILL BE NOMINATION ELECTION OF A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
AND I HAVE LEGAL HERE FOR REFERENCE, JUST TO HELP ME WITH, WITH THIS PROCESS.
SO, UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW THE, THE COMMISSION WANTS TO, UM, GO ABOUT THIS, BUT BASICALLY IT'S THE CONSENSUS OF THIS COMMISSION.
UM, SO I, I WOULD JUST OPEN THE FLOOR FOR NOMINATIONS.
SO FOR EITHER POSITION OR BOTH, YOU MAY TAKE 'EM ONE AT A TIME OR NOT.
SO IS THERE A NOMINATION FOR CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION? I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE DAVID HICK FOR CHAIR SECOND.
IS THERE ANY, UH, NOMINATIONS? OKAY.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE.
ANY AGAINST? ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, THE MOTION PASSES.
UM, UH, WE, WE, UH, BUT WE DO NEED A VICE CHAIR.
WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE A VICE CHAIR BECAUSE, UM, UH, THAT POSITION HAS BEEN, HAS BEEN CHANGED.
SO WE'LL NEED A NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIR.
AND SO, UH, LOOK TO THE COMMISSION.
UM, I NOMINATE JOHN COSGROVE AS VICE CHAIR.
I HAVE A NOMINATION FOR JOHN'S COSGROVE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS THAT PASSES? UM, JOHN AND I, I THINK THE LONGEST SERVING MEMBERS LEFT ON THE, ON THE BENCH, SO, UM, ANYWAY, UM, BUT WELCOME ALL AND WELCOME TO OUR, OUR NEW COMMISSION MEMBERS.
SO, UH, THE FIRST ITEM THEN, UH, THAT WE'LL MOVE ON TO WILL BE ITEM B, WHICH IS THE CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THREE 20 EAST 20TH STREET AT TEXAS 7 7 0 0 8.
AND HOUSTON HEIGHTS, EAST EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT FROM CONTRIBUTING TO NON-CONTRIBUTING.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR EK AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS STAFF MEMBER YASMIN ARSLAN.
TODAY I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AGENDA ITEM B AT THREE 20 EAST 20TH STREET.
THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED FROM AUGUST HAHC LAST MONTH.
THE PROPERTY IS A CONTRIBUTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1930 PER INVENTOR INVENTORY.
HCA SHOWS A BUILD DATE OF 1945 FOR THE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE.
IT IS IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT IN 2008, WHEN THE HEIGHTS EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NUMBER 2008 DASH FOUR, THE DISTRICT INVENTORY LABELED THREE 20 EAST 20TH, A POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTING PC COMMERCIAL 1930 STRUCTURE.
THE PC LABEL LIKELY STEMMED FROM THE MAIN BUILDING ORIGINALLY COVERED IN 1 0 5.
WOOD SIDING BEING CLADED OVER THE ALUMINUM SIDING.
HCA SHOWS A BUILD DATE OF 1945 THAT A PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION WAS ISSUED.
OH, I'M SORRY FOR THE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE.
DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED FROM THE HARRIS COUNTY ARCHIVE INCLUDE A BLOCK BOOK RECORD THAT SHOWS THAT THE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION WAS ISSUED IN NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER OF 1944 FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THIS SITE.
STAFF AND THE HISTORIC INSPECTOR WENT ON A SITE VISIT AND VERIFIED THAT THE BUILDING WAS BUILT IN THE 1940S.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO AMEND THE CLASSIFICATION OF THIS STRUCTURE FROM CONTRIBUTING TO NON-CONTRIBUTING.
THE DIRECTOR FELT THAT THE AGENT HAS
[00:10:01]
A STRONG, THE APPLICANT HAS A STRONG CASE TO BE PRESENTED IN FRONT OF THE HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL COMMISSION.STAFF HAS RECEIVED ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT AND WE HAVE, UM, SOMEONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF, UM, PRESENTATION.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
WE DO HAVE ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER AND THAT'S MARK STANDRIDGE.
YOU COULD PLEASE RE UH, REANNOUNCE YOUR, YOUR NAME IN THE, IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD.
YES, I'M MARK STANDRIDGE, AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING OR IN, IN SUPPORT OF, UM, THREE 20 WEST 20TH STREET RECLASSIFICATION, UM, THE RECLASS.
CAN WE PUT THE DOCUMENT CAMERA? THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
THREE 20 WEST 20TH STREET CONSISTS OF TWO STRUCTURES, A WAREHOUSE AND AN OFFICE.
BOTH ARE CURRENTLY CLASSIFIED AS CONTRIBUTING AND WE'RE REQUESTING THAT THEY BE RECLASSIFIED AS NON-CONTRIBUTING.
THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THIS PROPERTY IS NOT A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION, BUT RATHER THE EXECUTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 33 OF THE HOUSTON CODE OF ORDINANCES AND THE HEIGHTS HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES.
UM, THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING HAS ENDORSED THIS AND IS RECOMMENDING THE RECLASSIFICATION.
THE PROPERTY'S CLASSIFICATION IS DETERMINED BY ITS ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION DATE, AND BY THE STANDARDS OF CONTRIBUTING STATUS IS CLOSE AS CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE AND THE GUIDELINES IF WE CAN PUT UP THE NEXT PICTURE.
THIS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PROPERTY, AS JASMINE SAID, WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1945, NOT 1930, THEREFORE, IT FALLS OUTSIDE OF THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE, UM, THE SIGNIFICANCE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.
SO IF WE COULD SEE THE NEXT GRAPH, THIS GRAPH SHOWS THE STRUCTURES THAT WERE, ARE CONTRIBUTING AND WERE CONSTRUCTED EARLY IN THE 1920S, 1930S.
AND YOU'LL NOTICE THAT IN AS OF 1940S, NONE OF THESE ARE NOW, UH, CATEGORIZED AS CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.
AND YOU SEE THE LINE WITH THE 1945 DATE ON IT INDICATING WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS BUILT.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE QUESTIONING IS THIS IS POST WORLD WAR II CONSTRUCTION.
IT'S NOT A BUNGALOW, IT'S NOT VICTORIAN, IT'S NOT CRAFTSMEN.
THIS WAS BUILT AFTER 19, UH, AFTER IN 1945 AFTER WORLD WAR II.
THE STRUCTURES LACK ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT DEFINE THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS.
THE SETBACK, THE SCALE AND THE MASSING ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE DISTRICT DORMS. THE BUSINESS OPERATED IN OPENED, UH, OPERATED AS A LUMBERYARD AND IT OPENED IN 1945 AND IT CLOSED IN 1973.
THEREFORE, THE PERIOD IN WHICH THIS BUSINESS WAS OPERATING WAS OUTSIDE OF THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS.
SO WE REALLY DON'T BELIEVE IT BELONGS.
IT NEEDS TO BE A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
IT SHOULD BE NON-CONTRIBUTING.
UM, IT SITS NEXT PICTURE, PLEASE.
YEAH, IT SITS ON THE NORTHERN EDGE OF THE HEIGHTS EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE STREET SCAPE AND THE CONTEXT ARE REALLY AN A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET ARE, WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, ARE TOWN HOMES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 20TH STREET.
WE HAVE A VARIETY OF, UM, COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALL NON-CONTRIBUTING.
SO THIS HAS ZERO SETBACK ONTO THE STREET.
YOU WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR ONTO A STEP AND THE NEXT STEP IS ONTO THE SIDEWALK.
SO THERE'S NO SETBACK AND THERE'S NO REAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS.
IT DOESN'T REALLY COMMUNI, UH, CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING TO THE HEIGHTS EAST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FACE ANY OF THE, THE NORTH SOUTH STREETS, ARLINGTON, COLUMBIA, UM, SUCH.
IS THERE A SECOND? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR.
HE ALLOWED YOU MORE TIME IF YOU OH, HE DID? YEAH, I DID.
I HEARD YOU SAY RETURN TO YOUR SEAT, SIR, SIR.
SO IN SUMMARY, WE'RE REQUESTING THAT THIS BE RECLASSIFIED AS NON-CONTRIBUTING.
THE BUILDING IS CURRENTLY LABELED INCORRECTLY AS OF CONSTRUCTION DATE.
IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1945, NOT 1930.
UM, IT'S AFTER THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE HEIGHTS EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT AT THE DISTRICT, AND IT WAS WITHOUT ARCHITECTURAL MERIT.
IT HAS DIFFERENT, UH, ROOF LINES, DIFFERENT PITCHES.
IT JUST DOESN'T FIT WITH THE BUNGALOWS, THE CRAFTSMEN, UH, SORT OF ARCHITECTURE THAT WE SEE ELSEWHERE IN THE DISTRICT.
AND THE CONTEXT FOR THE PROPERTY IS, UH, AN A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ON A HIGHLY TRAFFICKED STREET.
[00:15:01]
IT'S NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET.AND SO WE REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THESE FACTORS JUSTIFY, UM, RECLASSIFICATION OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER FROM THE COMMISSION? THANK YOU, SIR.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER THAT'S IN THE ROOM? I, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER.
UH, WE'LL, UM, ASK MY COMMISSION MEMBERS IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR LEGAL.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, PLEASE.
UM, IS THERE SOME KIND OF SORT OF DEFINITION OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF, IS THERE A SORT OF NARRATIVE ABOUT WHAT DEFINES THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS DISTRICT? SO WE, WE WEREN'T HERE WHEN THE SURVEYED WAS DONE.
WE WERE HERE, NONE OF THE STAFF WERE ON, ON LIKE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM.
UM, BUT WHAT WE HAVE IS THE IN INVENTORY, AND WE ALSO HAVE THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES.
WE, WE HIGHLIGHTED, UM, WHERE IT SAID PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.
UM, AND IT DOES ON, I WANNA SAY ON PAGE EIGHT, IT DOES, UH, TALK ABOUT THAT, THAT, UM, UM, A PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE USUALLY ENDS WHEN CONSTRUCTION OR THE ASSOCIATION WITH A PERSON OR EVENT ENDS.
AND, AND THEY GAVE EXAMPLE FOR, UM, GLEN BROOK VALLEY AND THEY SAID FOR THE THREE HOUSTON HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICTS, THE 1940S ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED THE END OF THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.
AND, AND THAT'S WHAT, UM, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO RELYING ON.
AND, AND SO, UM, GOING BACK TO THE CHANGE OF, UH, DESIGNATION CRITERION SECTION 33 DASH 22 7 C, IT, OUR, THE RESPONSE TO THAT IS A QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED ABOUT THE LACK OF SPECIFIED AND CLEARLY ARTICULATED PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE HEIGHTS EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT AND WHETHER THIS BUILDING IS OUTSIDE OF THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE.
THAT'S WHAT WAS, UM, THAT'S HOW IT CAME FORWARD.
SO I KNOW LIKE MAYOR, OUR NEW ART ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN, BUT TYPICALLY THERE WAS NO CONSTRUCTION DURING THE WAR YEARS, UM, FOR RESOURCES GO OVERSEAS.
AND SO THERE WAS RENEWED CONSTRUCTION IN 1945 WHEN THE, WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE, THE CONFLICT.
SO I KNOW, UM, THERE VERY SCARCE MATERIALS AT THE TIME AND THIS LUMBER YARD WAS FORMED, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME.
I THINK MOST OF THIS IS LIKE THESE SHEDS THAT HAVE BEEN, THEY'RE FROM THE LUMBER YARD THAT I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY'RE USED OR THEY'RE STORAGE OR JUST ABANDONED.
I THINK THERE THE OFFICE WAS RETROFIT TO HOUSING THERE, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME HOUSING UPSTAIRS, BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME OCCUPATION OF THAT STRUCTURE.
I DON'T, I THINK THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS FROM COM LOST COMMISSION ON SOME OF THOSE ASPECTS.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK THE APPLICATION IS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S REALLY AFTER THE, IT'S, IT'S NOT AS IT WAS, UH, RECORDED IN 1930 IS THE, THE KEY IS THE DATE DISCREPANCY AND THE CONSTRUCTION IS REFLECTS THE MORE MODERN, UH, PERIOD THAT WAS SORT OF POST-WAR.
BUT IS, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
AND, AND, AND SO FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, ON PAGE 29, WE HAVE EXISTING PHOTOS FROM THE SITE VISIT THAT WAS DONE IN, IN MARCH BY THE, UM, BY, BY STAFF AND BY THE INSPECTOR.
SO IT SHOWS, IT SHOWS THAT, AND I BELIEVE ON PAGE 31 THERE WAS, UH, SOME KIND OF RESIDENCE OR OFFICE ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? WE DO HAVE DISTRICTS THAT HAVE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE AND HAVE SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES BUILT AFTER THOSE DATES.
THEY TEND TO BE VERY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES.
UM, I CAN ONLY THINK OF A FEW, UM, LIKE IN SHADOW LAWN FOR INSTANCE.
I CAN THINK OF ONE SPECTACULAR PROJECT, BUT, UM, THIS IS SORT OF AN OUTLIER BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF TYPOLOGY.
IT'S NOT BEEN IN BUSINESS IN 1973.
IT'S BEEN SORT OF CONVERTED TO HOUSING FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY THE, THE DIRECTOR HAS, HAS, UM, RECOMMENDED THIS FOR CONSIDERATION.
[00:20:10]
I DON'T, I'LL RETAIN A MOTION OR FOR THE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? I MOTION TO ACCEPT.
IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND YOU SECOND.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? I, I THINK I NEED TO, OH, OKAY.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM C.
CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
UM, ONE OR MORE ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN IN ONE MOTION AS CONSENT ITEMS. I BELIEVE TERRANCE WILL GIVE US THE SLATE OF NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC.
I'M STAFF MEMBER TERRANCE JACKSON AND TODAY'S STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FOR ACTION PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN ONE MOTION ITEM C 2 2 4 7 WEST 16TH STREET AND ALTERATION EDITION IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT.
APPROVAL ITEM C3 2 4 7 WEST 16TH STREET.
A NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE OR CARPORT IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL ITEM C 4 1 1 2 9 COURTLAND STREET ALTERATION EDITION IN THE HEIGHT HEIGHTS EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM C 5 1 1 2 9 COURTLAND STREET, ALTERATION OF THE GARAGE OR CARPORT IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL ITEM C 6 3 4 1 9 AUTO BOND PLACE ALTERATION EDITION IN THE AUTO BOND PLACE.
HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM C 7 7 4 4 HARVARD STREET, ALTERATION EDITION IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, 1 5 1 6 RUTLAND STREET ALTERATION EDITION WITH THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS HISTORIC, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS, WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
AND I WANT TO, UH, POINT OUT THAT THERE IS A TYPO OR THERE'S AN, A CONDITION THAT DOES NOT APPLY AND THAT THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, UH, THAT THE ADDITION ROOF AND CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING ROOF BE FIXED TO AVOID POOLING.
THAT'S THE ONLY CONDITION FOR THIS PARTICULAR, UM, REPORT ITEM C 9 1 5 3 5 OXFORD STREET, ALTERATION EDITION IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
ITEM C TEN ONE ZERO ZERO EIGHT EAST 14TH STREET, ALTERATION EDITION IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
ITEM C 11 9 1 8 COLUMBIA STREET, ALTERATION OF WINDOWS IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMEND RECOMMENDATION, DENIAL OF A COA ISSUANCE OF A COR RECOMMENDA.
APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, I'M SORRY, ITEM C 12 19 32.
ADDITION OF WINDOWS, PORCH OR BALCONY, THIS IS A LANDMARK.
THE JOSEPH AND ANNIE LUDWIG LUDWIG HOUSE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL C 13 1 9 0 7 DECATUR STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE OR A CARPORT IN THE OLD SIX WARD.
HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM 1 9 7 DECATUR STREET, ALTERATION OF THE PORCH OR BALCONY IN THE OLD, OLD SIX WARD.
HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL ITEM C 15 7 3 2 ARLINGTON STREET ALTERATION, ADDITION AND WINDOWS IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL
[00:25:01]
ITEM C 16 1 0 1 1 LAG GREEN ALTERATION OF WINDOWS IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL C 17 1 5 0 7 ASHLAND STREET ALTERATION AND THIS IS IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATION.APPROVAL 4 4 1 COLUMBIA STREET ALTERATION OF WINDOWS IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL C 19 5 3 0 7 NORTH MAIN STREET, ALTERATION OF A SIGN IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL C 20 14 26 AUSTIN STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE OR A CARPORT AND THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL AND ITEM C 21 3 5 0 6 AUDUBON PLACE, ALTERATION OF WINDOWS IN THE AUTOBAHN PLACE.
HISTORIC DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS ACTION PER STAFF.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROCEEDING ITEMS WE ARE REQUESTING.
ITEM C ONE BE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY.
WE ARE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU TERRANS COMMISSION MEMBERS.
ARE THERE ANY OF THESE PROJECTS, UH, TWO THROUGH 21 THAT YOU'D LIKE TO PULL FOR IN INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION? OKAY, ARE THERE ANY OTHER PROJECTS? OKAY, I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU'RE IN THE PUBLIC AND YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS TWO THROUGH EIGHT OR 10 THROUGH 21 AND YOU ARE, UH, OPPOSED TO THE, THE CONDITION THAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED, UM, YOU CAN ASK TO PULL THOSE AND WE'LL DISCUSS THEM INDIVIDUALLY.
NUMBER 10 C TEN ONE ZERO ZERO EIGHT EAST 14TH STREET AND NUMBER 16 C 16.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER PROJECTS? ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC IF YOU'RE OPPOSED TO THE RECOMMENDATION, IF, IF YOU, IF YOU AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, YOU CAN STAY SILENT AT THIS, I RECOMMEND.
OKAY, NOT HEARING, UH, ANYONE ELSE.
I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
UH, THE PROPOSED REVISED CONSENT AGENDA IS ITEMS 2, 3, 4, 5 6 7 8 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THESE REVISED ITEMS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF? SO MOVED.
ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? COMMISSIONER HILL? I ABSTAIN FROM ITEMS 13 AND 14.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM ONE.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE HHC.
THIS IS ONCE AGAIN STAFF PERSON TERRANCE JACKSON, AND TODAY I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM C ZERO ONE AT 1138 WEST F GATE.
THE PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED A CONTRIBUTING 1,216 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY WOOD FRAME, HOME BUILT CIRCA 1925, CIRCA 1925 WITH A DETACHED GARAGE SITUATED ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT CORNER LOT.
THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE NO LONGER REMAINS AND THE ONLY THING EXISTING IS THE FOUNDATION.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO SEEK APPROVAL FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
THE HOME SIGNIFICANTLY BUT PARTIALLY COLLAPSED DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW PREVIOUSLY APPROVED EDITION.
DUE TO THE THREAT OF LIFE AND SAFETY, SAFETY SIGNIFICANTLY DESTABILIZED HOUSE POSED AS SEEN BY THE CITY, THE OWNER, THE OWNER DEMOLISHED THE HOUSE PER CITY REQUEST.
OWNER SUBMITTED THE B 28 FORM TO, TO THE PUBLIC TO PUBLIC WORKS, I'M SORRY, ON JUNE 5TH, 2025, STATING THAT THE DEMOLITION FACTOR WAS 2.80.
THEY ALSO PROPOSE THE NEW CON, THEY
[00:30:01]
PROPOSE TO PRESENT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF THE DESIGN, WHICH IS PART OF THE DEMOLITION COA, WHICH YOU WILL SEE AT THE END OF THIS, UH, REPORT.FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 1,485 SQUARE FOOT FIRST FLOOR AND A 1,410 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR, BRINGING THE LIVABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 2,895 SQUARE FEET WITH A 520 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ATTACHED TO THE SECOND FLOOR, TOTALING 3,415 SQUARE FEET.
THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT, AS I MENTIONED, THE 520 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE.
THEY WILL INCLUDE A RIDGE HEIGHT OF 25 FEET, 10 INCHES, AND A 20 FEET TWO INCH PLATE HEIGHT.
THEY PROPOSE TO CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION WITH INSET AND RECESS WINDOWS AND IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH CEMENT CEMENTITIOUS SI WILL BE CLA WITH CEMENTITIOUS SIDING.
THEY PROPOSE TO INCLUDE A 15 FOOT SEVEN INCH BY NINE FOOT 10 INCH REAR PORCH WITH A SQUARE FOOTAGE ABOVE, WITH SQUARE FOOTAGE ABOVE.
AND IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A FOUR FOOT REAR SETBACK, A 14 FOOT SIDE SETBACK AT STUDIO WOOD AND A FOUR FOOT SETBACK AT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY LINE.
THEY ALSO PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT THE HOME WITH FOUR OVER 12 ROOF PITCH AND A SIX OVER 12 ROOF PITCH.
STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF A COA AND ISSUANCE OF A COR FOR DEMOLITION WITHOUT A PERMIT, WHICH IS CUSTOMARY PRACTICE FOR ALL PROJECTS THAT PERFORM WORK WITHOUT A COA AND, AND OR A PERMIT.
STAFF HAS AL ALSO RECOMMENDED DENIAL FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION AS IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE HPAB, THE HISTORIC APPEALS BOARD HAS REPRIMAND, HAS REMANDED THIS PROJECT BACK TO THE HHC TO REVIEW THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AS PART OF THE DEMOLITION APPLICATION CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE HHC I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
AT THIS TIME I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF MEMBERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
UH, THE FIRST, UH, PERSON WHO WAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IS KATE SIMMONS.
IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD.
HELLO, MY NAME IS KATE SIMMONS.
I AM REPRESENTING VET RENOVATIONS.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW POINTS REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION COA FOR 1138 FEW EIGHT STREET.
THERE'S NO NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE BLOCK FACE.
THE ONLY TWO STORY HOUSE ON THE BLOCK FACE IS 1102 FUGATE AND PLANNING IS CHOOSING NOT TO RECOGNIZE IT.
OTHERWISE, THERE ARE ALL ONE STORY HOUSES.
AS SUCH IS UNFAIR TO LIMIT THE CONTEXT AREA TO THE BLOCK FACE.
GIVEN THE ORDINANCE, PERMITS THE COMMISSION TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE BLOCK FACE IF THERE ARE NO COMPARABLE EXAMPLES.
IF YOU LOOK OUTSIDE THE BLOCK FACE, THERE ARE SEVERAL VERY SIMILAR EXAMPLES TO THE PROPOSED PLANS FOR 1138 FUGATE.
THOSE HOUSES MAY NOT BE NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT THEY'RE BEST EXAMPLES.
THE COMMISSION WILL BE ABLE TO FIND ON RECENT ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS.
VET IS DOING ITS BEST TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT'LL FIT INTO THE CONTEXT OF THE GREATER NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO FIND HOUSES IN NOR HILL THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND HAVE BEEN BUILT.
WE'VE BROUGHT THESE EXAMPLES TO PLANNING IN PARTICULAR 9 0 1 KEY STREET, LESS THAN A FIVE MINUTE WALK AWAY FROM 1138 FUGATE STREET.
IF 9 0 1 KEY WAS APPROVED, THERE'S NO GOOD REASON TO DENY A COA FOR 1138 FUGATE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER? THANK YOU.
UM, THE NEXT SPEAKER WHO WAS SIGNED UP IS MARY EMILY SCHULTZ.
GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK FOR A FEW MINUTES.
UM, MY NAME IS MARY EMILY SCHULTZ.
I'M A RESIDENT OF NOR HILL AND ON PETTY STREET, AND I JUST WANNA SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT WHY THE HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT OF PETTY OF, UM, NOR HILL IS VERY IMPORTANT, VERY UNIQUE AND IS THE REASON WHY I CHOSE TO MOVE OUT OF OTHER PARTS OF THE HEIGHTS INTO NOR HILL IN 2013.
AND SO THAT I CAN STAY ON POINT AND MOVE RIGHT ALONG QUICKLY, I WANT TO READ A FEW COMMENTS THAT I PREPARED ON THIS WITH YOUR PERMISSION.
NOR HILL IS A UNIQUE JEWEL COMPRISED OF 940 HOUSES.
IT HAS THE LARGEST INTACT COLLECTION OF HISTORIC BUNGALOWS IN THE STATE.
AND I WILL SAY POSSIBLY THE NATION BECAUSE IT WAS A PLANNED COMMUNITY DESIGNED BY THE HOG FAMILY, THE HIS, THE FAMOUS HOG FAMILY IN HOUSTON.
THE CONFORMITY OF THE HOUSES IS UNIQUE AND GIVES VALUE TO ITS PROPERTIES
[00:35:01]
WORTH.PEOPLE CAN PROUDLY MAINTAIN THEIR BUNGALOWS WITHOUT FEAR OF THEIR BEING TORN DOWN AND REPLACED BY MUCH LARGER, NEW CONSTRUCTIONS, WHICH IS THE CASE ELSEWHERE IN THE HEIGHTS.
AND THAT'S ONE REASON I MOVED OUT OF THAT OTHER PART OF THE HEIGHTS.
FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GROW FORWARD, IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE ALLOWED IN EXISTING HOUSES, BUT THE CHARACTER OF THE REMODELINGS MUST NOT SACRIFICE WHAT MAKES NOR HILL SPECIAL.
ALLOWING VERY LARGE ADDITIONS CHANGES THE SCALE AND AFFORDABILITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN NOR HILL.
YOU CAN STAND IN YOUR BACKYARD AND SEE THE SKY.
YOU CAN SIT ON YOUR PORCH AND TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS.
LARGE ADDITIONS REDUCE GREEN SPACE.
THEY REDUCE LIGHT, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, THEY DIMINISH THE CHARACTER OF THE ORIGINAL BUNGALOWS BY OVERPOWERING AND OVERSHADOWING THEM.
THE DESIGN MOVE TO EXTEND TIME.
THE DESIGN PROPOSED HERE FOR THIS LOT EXTENDS ALL THE WAY BACK TO FOUR FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
IT HAS A SECOND FLOOR PORCH LOOMING OVER THE HOUSE.
BEHIND IT CREATES A 56 FOOT LONG TWO STORY WALL.
IN SHORT, IT CHANGES THE VERY FABRIC, THE SPECIAL FABRIC THAT MAKES NOR HILL SO SPECIAL.
AND I THINK WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS THAT WE'LL SHOW ON THIS.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
UH, THE NEXT SPEAKER SIGN UP IS VIRGINIA KELSEY.
I'M THE VP OF DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR THE NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
IF HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS ARE TO SURVIVE, THERE MUST BE CONSEQUENCES FOR ACTIONS THAT RESULT IN THE DESTRUCTION OF HISTORIC HOMES.
THE OWNER DISPOSED OF ALL THE SALVAGEABLE BRICK WHICH WAS REMOVED DURING THE REMODELING.
SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE SHIPLAP AND FRAMING WERE REMOVED.
ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE BASIC BUILDING PRACTICES OF HISTORIC HOMES UNDERSTANDS THAT REMOVING THE SHIPLAP WOULD DESTROY THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY.
NOR HILL HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY FOR MANY YEARS TO PASS GUIDELINES FEELING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF LOSING ITS UNIQUE CHARACTER.
NOR HILL PASSED THE N NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GUIDELINES BASED ON THE CITY'S POLLING AND DRAFT DOCUMENTS TO DEFINE WHAT IS HARMONY AND WHAT HARMONY MEANS TO NOR HILL, THE CITY AND NOR HILL APPROVED THE PLANS FOR THE REMODELING AND ADDITION TO THE ORIGINAL HOME.
AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE HOUSE ON JUNE 12TH, THE OWNER SUBMITTED A DESIGN PRIMARILY IN KEEPING WITH THE ORIGINAL APPROVED REMODELING DESIGN.
NOR HILL REVIEWED THESE PLANS FOR A NEW HOUSE AND MADE A FEW MINOR REQUESTS FOR IT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR DESIGN GUIDELINES.
THE OWNER IS NOW ASKING NOT TO REBUILD WHAT WAS LOST, BUT TO BUILD A HOUSE WHICH IS COMPLETELY OUT OF SCALE WITH THE HISTORIC NOR HILL IT IS 28 95 SQUARE FEET WITH A FLOOR AREA A 0.58.
TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, THERE ARE ONLY 14 OUT OF 940 HOMES WITH A FAR OVER 0.49.
AND I DO WANNA ADD THIS COMMENT BASED ON THEIR, ON THEIR, THEIR SITUATION.
NOR HILL DID NEVER APPROVE 9 0 1 KEY, IT WENT TO ARBITRATION AND DETAILS HAVE BEEN SEALED.
MOVE TO EXTEND SPEAKER'S TIME BY A MINUTE.
IS THERE A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
SO THE DETAILS WERE SEALED AND IT COULDN'T BE APPEALED.
IN ADDITION TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE DESIGN THEY ARE NOW REQUESTING IS TOO CLOSE TO THE STREET.
THE PLATE HEIGHT IS TOO TALL WITH A SECOND FLOOR AND FLOOR STRUCTURE, WHICH IS TOO BIG.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, NOR HILL IS NOT APPROVING HOUSES CONNECTING TO OR EXTENDING OVER GARAGES.
SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONS MUST BE 19 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, NOT THE FOUR FEET OF THIS DESIGN.
IN SUMMARY, THE OWNER DID NOT EMPLOY STANDARD BUILDING PRACTICES, WHICH RESULTED IN THE COLLAPSE OF THE STRUCTURE AND IS NOW REQUESTING TO BUILD A HOUSE WHICH IS NOT IN HARMONY WITH NOR HILL AS A PATH FORWARD TO THE OWNER NOR HILL REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THEIR JUNE 12TH DESIGN AND TO DENY THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU.
UH, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER SIGNED UP? AND THAT IS LETHA ALLEN.
[00:40:02]
HELLOI'M, UH, ON THE NOR HILL BOARD.
UM, AND I OPPOSE THIS PLAN AS IT'S PRESENTED.
UM, I'VE LIVED IN NORVILLE FOR FIVE YEARS AND BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR THREE YEARS.
AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE COME HERE TO SPEAK.
AND YOU MAY NOT BELIEVE IT, BUT I'M AN ATTORNEY AND ALSO HAVE A PLANNING DEGREE AND HAVE SPOKEN AT AT OTHER FORUM LIKE THIS.
UM, THIS, UM, DEMOLITION WAS PREVENTABLE.
UM, AND IN MY OPINION IT WAS A WASTEFUL, VERY WASTEFUL AND SHAMEFUL OCCURRENCE.
UM, THIS IS A VERY PROMINENT INTERSECTION IN NOR HILL.
IT'S, UM, IF YOU GET AND STU TO WOOD, UM, IT'S WHERE MOST PEOPLE EXPERIENCE NOR HILL.
IT'S ACROSS FROM THE SHILOH CLUB, I THINK IS WHAT IT'S CALLED, WHICH IS A, A VERY WELL KNOWN, UM, BAR.
UM, ANYWAY, IT'S, IT SERVES AS A GATEWAY TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, UM, AS IS NORMAL, THIS COULD RESULT.
UM, THIS APPROVING, THIS PLAN WOULD, UM, KIND OF BE, COULD BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE.
IT SERVES AS A PRECEDENT JUST AS, UM, KEY IS SEE IS SEEN AS A PRECEDENT.
THE KEY STREET PROPERTY REFERRED TO EARLIER IS SEEN AS A, UM, A PRECEDENT.
THIS COULD ALSO SERVE AS A PRECEDENT, BUT THE FACT THAT IT'S AT A PROMINENT INTERSECTION MAKES IT EVEN, UM, MORE DANGEROUS.
IT'S NOT IN A QUIET CORNER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SOMEONE COULD IGNORE.
IT IS, IT IS WHAT THE PUBLIC SEES AS NOR HILL.
AND THE CURRENT 3000 APPROACHING 3000 CORPORATE HOUSE IS COMPLETELY OUT OF SCALE AND IS NOT WHAT NOR HILL WAS DESIGNED TO BE, WHICH IS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD OF MODEST BUNGALOWS.
SO, UM, PLEASE ONCE AGAIN, UH, OPPOSE THIS.
UM, AND WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER SIGN UP, WHICH IS BRIAN WILSON.
UM, I'M THE, I'M ACTUALLY THE IMMEDIATE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR OF THE PROPERTY, 1138 FUGATE.
UM, AND SINCE FIRST WANTED TO MENTION, SINCE FIRST SPEAKING, UH, WITH THE OWNER SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, WE'VE, UH, MY WIFE AND I, UM, I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 15 YEARS OR SO.
UM, HAVE EAGERLY ANTICIPATED THE LONG OVERDUE RENOVATION OF THIS PROPERTY, UM, WHICH SUFFERED FROM LACK, JUST JUST A LACK OF MAINTENANCE OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS.
UM, AND PROBABLY LONGER THAN THAT.
I FULLY SUPPORTED THE PLANS SUBMITTED ON JUNE 12TH FOR A 2,250 SQUARE FOOT HOME WITH DETACHED GARAGE BASED ON THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ALTERATION IN ADDITION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE.
HOWEVER, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE NEW PROPOSAL SUBMITTED ON AUGUST 6TH FOR A ROUGHLY 2,900 SQUARE FOOT NEW CONSTRUCTION.
UH, THIS DESIGN IS MUCH LARGER THAN ANY APPROVED PROJECT BY THE NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND AS, AS WAS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, UH, PREVIOUSLY THE FLOOR AREA RATIO WAS ABOUT 0.58 ON THIS 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
UM, BY COMPARISON, THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES LIMITS THE FAR TO 0.46, WHICH WOULD BE 2300 SQUARE FEET.
AND THE NNA DESIGN GUIDELINES LIMIT THE FAR TO 0.45.
SO 2250, WHICH COINCIDES WITH THE APPROVED PLANS FROM BEFORE.
UM, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE CONCERNING WITH THE NEW DESIGN.
UH, FIRST I, I CONSIDER THIS HEIGHT MASSING AND PRIVACY.
UH, THE NEW DESIGN USES 24 INCH TRUSSES BETWEEN THE FLOORS RATHER THAN THE TYPICAL TWO BY 12 JOISTS.
THE NINE FOOT SECOND FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT IS NOT TYPICAL.
WE IS WHAT'S TYPICALLY APPROVED, UH, IN NOR HILL BY THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ACTUALLY IS AN EIGHT FOOT PLATE HEIGHT.
UM, THE NEW DESIGN SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES THE SECOND STORY SIZE RELATIVE TO THAT APPROVED DESIGN ON JUNE 12TH.
THE SECOND STORY, REAR PORTS LOOKING DOWN INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD IS ALSO A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING WITH PRIVACY CONCERNS THERE.
SO THE ORIGINAL HOME RIGHT NOW OR WAS AS LONG AS I'VE LIVED THERE, OF COURSE, AS LONG AS IT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED, 10 FOOT 4 10, 10 FOOT FOUR INCHES SIDE SETBACK FROM MY PROPERTY LINE.
MOTION TO GRANT THE SPEAKER AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
PLEASE PROCEED FOR ONE MINUTES.
UH, THE NEW DESIGN IS ONLY A FOUR FOOT SETBACK.
UM, SO INSTEAD OF THE 10 FOOT FOUR AND ONLY FOUR FOOT AT THE REAR AS WELL, UM, THE ABOVE CONCERNS WILL FUNDAMENTALLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY WHILE INTRUDING ON THE PRIVACY OF MINE AND THE REAR NEIGHBORS ON THIS BLOCK IN THE ADJACENT.
SO FOR IN A THREE BLOCK AREA, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, COMPARATIVE PROPERTIES IN A THREE BLOCK AREA.
THIS BLOCK THE, THE 1100 BLOCK OF WEST MILLWOOD, AND THE SAME AT WEST GARDNER.
UM, ONLY ONE OTHER HOUSE, WHICH IS 1102 FUGATE AT THE END OF THIS BLOCK HAS COMPARABLE DIMENSIONS.
AND THAT PROJECT WAS NEVER APPROVED BY EITHER THE NNA BOARD OR THE HHC.
UM, FOR THESE REASONS I ASK THAT THE HHC DENY THE APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 1138 FUGATE AND REQUIRE THE OWNER'S REBUILD WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED, THE REFERENCE JUNE 12TH, UM, DESIGN.
[00:45:01]
YOU.IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? PLEASE NOT YOURSELF AT THIS TIME.
I'M GONNA CLOSE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, TERRANCE, I BELIEVE THERE'LL BE SOME QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS.
THIS, UM, MANY OF OUR MEMBERS ARE NEW, OBVIOUSLY, AND THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN BEFORE US FOR A NUMBER OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS FOR VARIOUS, UM, UM, UH, ASPECTS.
UM, CAN YOU RESTATE, UM, THAT THERE FIRST WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE, THE BRICK, UH, FELL DOWN ON PART OF THE STRUCTURE AND THEN, UH, THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THE BRICK THAT LEFT THE PROPERTY.
BUT AFTER THAT, UM, A C OF A WAS APPLIED FOR, UH, AND SO WHAT, WHAT YOU'VE BEEN SHOWING ON THE SCREEN, UM, IS A C OF A, WHICH SOME OF THE SPEAKERS HAVE REFERRED TO AS IN ADDITION TO THE HISTORIC HOME.
AND WE MAY NEED TO AT SOME POINT PUT THAT UP AND COMPARE THAT TO, AGAIN, TO THE NEWLY PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
UM, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THESE PICTURES RIGHT HERE IS THAT IN THE COURSE OF BUILDING FOR THAT APPROVED C OF A, UM, A NUMBER OF THE SHIP SHIPLAP WAS REMOVED, A NUMBER OF WALLS WERE REMOVED, UM, AND THE HOUSE FELL DOWN.
AND, AND IT, AS TERRANCE MENTIONED, IT BECAME A PUBLIC, UH, SAFETY ISSUE IF A CHILD WERE TO SNEAK INTO THE THIS WORK SITE AT NIGHT AND FURTHER THE COLLAPSE, THIS, THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE.
SO THE STRUCTURE WAS TAKEN DOWN.
AND, UH, IN OUR LAST MEETING, PETE STOCKTON APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION DISCUSSING THE DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURE, THE DEFINITION OF DEMOLITION.
AND THERE'S A, THERE'S A CHART IN YOUR APP IN THE APPLICATION ABOUT DEMOLITION.
AND WE MAY NEED TO, UM, SO, UH, AS FOR MY COMMISSION MEMBERS, PART OF THE DISCUSSION TODAY IS IN, UM, AND I MAY NEED HELP FROM, UH, KIM, BUT PART OF OUR DISCUSSION IS THAT A DEMOLITION HAS OCCURRED AT THIS ADDRESS AND THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE ORDINANCE REGARDING DEMOLITION.
UH, THERE IS SOME DISCRETION AMONGST THIS COMMISSION.
NONETHELESS, UM, THE COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, THIS APPLICANT HAD A C OF A FOR A, AN ADDITION THAT WAS, UM, SMALLER THAN WHAT THEY'RE NOW ASKING FOR TOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S THE, THE SORT OF THREE THINGS WE, WE NEED TO LOOK AT.
AND I THINK YOU MAY HAVE QUESTIONS.
UM, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK A CLARIFICATION QUESTION OF STAFF.
IT SAYS HERE, RECOMMENDATION DENIAL OF COA AND ISSUANCE OF A COA FOR DEMOLITION IS THAT, UH, IT SHOULD BE DENIAL OF A COA ISSUANCE OF A-C-O-R-C-O-R.
AND WHY ARE WE NOT TREATING THIS AS AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION SINCE THE NEGLECT OF THE HOMEOWNER LED TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE? UH, SO BASED ON WHAT THE APPEALS BOARD RULED, THE APPEALS BOARD RULED TO REMOVE THE ILLEGAL DEMOLITION TAG FROM THE, FROM THE, UH, FROM THE HCS DECISION.
AND TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU GUYS TO RULE UP OR DOWN IS WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID.
AND, UM, BECAUSE, UH, AND, AND LEGAL CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT NOW IT, I REMEMBER YOU HAD AN ISSUE BECAUSE IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION.
SO NOW THAT WE HAVE THE NEW DESIGN, THAT DEMOLITION IS NOW A COMPLETE APPLICATION AND THE HPAB FELT THAT YOU GUYS SHOULD RULE ON THIS AND MAKE A DECISION ON IT BECAUSE YOU HAD NOT SEEN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION TERRANCE'S, MY UNDERSTANDING, WHAT WAS THE RASH? WELL JUST SAY THIS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS, AT THE APPEALS BOARD, THERE WAS SOME NEW EVIDENCE OR PHOTOGRAPHS PRESENTED TO THE APPEALS BOARD THAT WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THIS COMMISSION IN OUR LAST MEETING.
IS THAT, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? I MEAN, YOU MEAN BY BY STAFF NO, BY THE APPLICANT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SHORING OF THE STRUCTURE OR THE ASSERTION THAT IT WAS SHORT YES.
THE, THE ASSERTION THAT IT WAS SHORT YES, SIR.
BUT, BUT, BUT THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PRESENTED TO THE APPEALS BOARD THAT WAS NOT PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE COMMISSION TO IN OUR LAST MEETING IS CORRECT.
AND, UM, THEIR STAFF ALSO HAD PHOTOS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM PETE STOCKTON.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF I WANNA SAY IF THAT COMBATS THAT THEORY, BUT I JUST, WE JUST, UM, WE, WE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL PHOTOS FROM PETE STOCKTON, WHICH ARE THE PHOTOS WITH THE CIRCLES ON THEM, WHICH WERE TAKING THE DATE OF THE COLLAPSE.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT STAFF DOESN'T,
[00:50:02]
DOESN'T DRAW THE, UM, STAFF'S, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION HAS NOT CHANGED BASED ON ANY NEW PHOTOS SUBMITTED BY OKAY, COMMISSIONER COSGROVE.SO WHAT WAS THEIR RATIONALE FOR CHANGING OUR DECISION? UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE ILLEGAL DEMOLITION AND THE RATIONALE WAS, UM, BASED UPON THE FACT THAT, UM, STAFF REACHED OUT TO THE OWNER AND TOLD THE OWNER THAT THIS WAS, UH, A HAZARD AND IT NEEDED TO COME DOWN.
SO THEIR COUNSEL, THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL ARGUED THAT FACT AND SAID THAT, UM, HOW COULD THIS, HIS ARGUMENT BASICALLY WAS HOW COULD THIS BE A COR IF THEY WERE INDEED TOLD TO DEMOLISH THE HOUSE.
SO THIS, IT SHOULD NOT BE COMING BACK TO, SHOULD NOT BE COMING TO APPEALS FOR THE APPROVAL OF A COA OR COR.
AND WE'RE BOUND BY THAT DECISION.
I MEAN, THEY, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE AND RULE ON NEW INFORMATION.
YOU DIDN'T HAVE IT, UM, AS NOTED, AND I THINK THAT WAS THE, THE INTENT OF THE PRESENTATION TO THE HPAB AT THAT TIME? YEAH, IT WAS TO GET THE ILLEGAL LANGUAGE REMOVED.
UM, SO IT DIDN'T SHOW FAULT PERHAPS.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS TRULY PART OF IT.
AND THEN THAT THEY COULD THEN PROCEED WITH, WITH REBUILDING.
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SENDING BACK TO YOU.
SO NOW THAT THAT'S CLEAR FOR ME.
LET ME ADDRESS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
SO, UH, BEFORE WE DO THAT, I WANNA MAKE SURE, BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN DONE, WE RECEIVED, UH, UH, EDITED PLANS FROM THE, UH, OWNERS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THIS TO THE RECORD.
UH, YES, PLEASE DOCUMENT CAMERA, AND I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT EXCEPT FOR THE SECOND FLOOR ROOF LINE HAS BEEN HIP.
SO I'LL JUST GO TO THE ELEVATIONS.
UM, THERE ARE NO FLOOR PLAN CHANGES THAT I HAVE RECOGNIZED.
UNFORTUNATELY, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT OUT HERE.
UM, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ROOF LINE HAS BEEN HIP AND, UH, THAT'S BASICALLY THE CHANGE.
IT'S HIPPED ON BOTH SIDES, UH, THE FRONT AND AT THE REAR.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SUPPORT IT SIMPLY BECAUSE NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE A PRODUCT OF ITS OWN TIME.
AND THIS DESIGN CREATES A FALSE HISTORY.
THAT'S, YOU'RE, YOU'RE TRYING TO MIMIC SOMETHING THAT OCCURS NATURALLY IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
BUT THIS IS NOT, NOT THAT THIS IS NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE A PRODUCT OF ITS OWN TIME.
IT SHOULDN'T, IT SHOULDN'T RESEMBLE ANY OTHER HOUSE.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
IT SHOULD BORROW ELEMENTS FROM THE CONTRIBU CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES, BUT IT SHOULD NOT TRY TO COPY IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, I I THINK MOVING FORWARD THEY SHOULD BRING A DESIGN THAT DOES NOT DO THAT.
THAT BECOMES A PRODUCT OF ITS OWN TIME.
AND WE CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THAT'S A NEW HOUSE INFILLED INTO A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT ONE DESIGNED TO, TO KIND OF MIMIC WHAT NATURALLY OCCURS IN THE DISTRICT.
MR. BLAKELY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAYBE RESPOND TO THAT.
UM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT AN EFFORT WAS MADE IN THIS DESIGN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TO SIMULATE A KIND OF EXISTING BUNGALOW TO WHICH SOMETHING SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT IN ITS DETAILS HAS BEEN ADDED.
AND I, I APPRECIATE THAT APPROACH.
MY CONCERNS ARE MORE WITH THE SCALE AND THE SETBACK ISSUES.
UM, IF I LOOK, IF I'M EVALUATING THIS AS NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, WE'RE ASKED TO LOOK AT THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, FROM THE FRONT AND SIDE WALLS, UH, TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE.
WE'RE ASKED TO LOOK AT THE NEW EXTERIOR FEATURES OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXTERIOR FEATURES OF EXISTING CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE CONTEXT AREA.
I WOULD SAY THAT'S, I SEE AN EFFORT IN THIS DESIGN IN THAT DIRECTION.
BUT THE, THE SCALE AND PROPORTIONS OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION SEEM OUT OF KEEPING WITH THE TYPICAL HOMES IN NOR HILL.
I KNOW THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS AND, AND SOME OF THEM ARE ALONG STEW WOOD PRECISELY.
UH, BUT I I DON'T THINK THAT THAT SETS AN EXAMPLE THAT'S IN KEEPING WITH THE ORDINANCE.
I THINK ON THE CONTRARY, WE SHOULD, UH, RESPECT THE SCALE AND THE SCALE OF THE PLANT, THE DIMENSIONS OF THE PLAN, THE EVE HEIGHT.
[00:55:01]
THE PROPORTIONS OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION NEED TO BE CLOSER TO WHAT IS THE TYPICAL CONTRIBUTING HOME IN THE AREA.AND THE FOURTH CRITERION IS AS TO THE HEIGHT.
I THINK I ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT.
UH, SO I WOULD SAY IF I LOOK AT OUR CRITERIA, IT FAILS.
THIS LATEST PROPOSAL FAILS TO SATISFY THREE OUT OF FOUR, UH, OF THE CRITERIA.
SO, UM, THIS MAY BE A LEGAL QUESTION BECAUSE I HAVE A LEVEL OF CONFUSION.
WE HAVE TWO THINGS IN FRONT OF US.
ONE IS THE, UH, DEMO, UH, COA FOR A DEMOLITION AND THEN A SEPARATE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
IT WOULD SEEM THAT WE HAVE TO DO THE FIRST BEFORE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE SECOND BECAUSE THEY'RE INTERTWINED IF THE FIRST, IF THE THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE DEMOLITION, THEN I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING IT IS AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION AND THEREFORE THERE ARE A WHOLE NOTHER SKEW OF THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND A DELAY OF NEW CONSTRUCTION OR, AND IF THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, I'M NOT SURE WHY THERE WOULD BE A DENIAL OF THE COA SINCE IT'S ALREADY DEMOLISHED.
I WILL ASK STAFF TO REPEAT THE RECOMMENDATION JUST ON THE C OF A, BUT I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE THAT IT WAS STILL DENIAL OF THE C OF A FOR DEMOLITION, HOWEVER, APPROVAL OF THE C OF R AS IT WAS RULED OUT BY HPAB WITHOUT CALLING IT AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION.
I SAID, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A DENIAL OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AND THEN SEPARATELY, AS YOU NOTE, AND THERE ARE TECHNICALLY TWO ITEMS, YOU MAY TAKE THEM AS ONE IF YOU AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON BOTH, OR YOU MAY VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY.
I GUESS THE CHAIR'S QUESTION FOR LEGAL IS THAT BASED ON THE PRESENTATION FROM PETE IN OUR LAST MEETING, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ONCE IT FELL, THE STRUCTURE WAS DEMOLISHED IN THE PICTURES THAT WE SEE, HE ASSESSED THOUGH THAT CONDITION THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THESE IMAGES AS DEMOLISHED.
AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF THE MATERIAL, WHICH IS WHAT WAS UH, REFERRED TO BY THE SPEAKER, UH, THE FIRST SPEAKER.
SO THE, THE CONFUSION, THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE CONFUSED HERE BECAUSE, UM, THIS HAS A, WHEN IT FELL DOWN BECAUSE THERE LACK OF SHORING OR IT, IT MAY HAVE HAD SOME SHORING, BUT IT APPARENTLY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH ADEQUATE SHORING.
'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT FELL OVER.
SO, UM, BUT IT, ONCE IT FELL OVER, IT WAS EFFECTIVELY DEMOLISHED PER THE CITY, UH, THAT THE, WE HAVE A CHART THAT JUST SAYS X AMOUNT OF SQUARE FEET OF THIS, THESE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE DISCUSSION HAPPENED IN OUR LAST MEETING, DR PRESENTATION, IN MY UNDERSTANDING, IN THE APPEALS BOARD, ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL SHORING.
BUT AGAIN, THAT SHORING WASN'T ENOUGH WHEN EVERY, ALL THE WALLS WERE REMOVED AND, AND THERE WASN'T ENOUGH TO RESIST ANY LATERAL FORCES.
THE SECOND ISSUE THAT YOU, YOU, YOU'VE RAISED IS THAT THE, THE APPLICANT DID HAVE A CA APPROVED C OF A TO MAKE AN ADDITION TO THEIR HOME THAT WAS STANDING NONETHELESS.
AND THIS MY UNDER UNDERSTANDING FROM THE APPEALS BOARD, THEY LIKE US TO VOTE UP OR DOWN OR ON A CLEAR ITEM.
AND WHAT MY QUESTION FOR LEGAL IS THIS, WE COULD, UM, WE CAN POTENTIALLY VOTE ON THE APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN BEFORE US, UP OR DOWN.
UM, I STILL BELIEVE IT WOULD BE A, UH, ANOTHER OPTION WOULD IF, IF THAT'S, LET'S SAY THAT FAILED, THE COMMISSION COULD VOTE TO ALLOW THE C OF A THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED TO BE RECONSTRUCTED AS IT WAS APPROVED, EVEN THOUGH THE WHOLE THING WILL BE NEW, BUT THE FRONT EDITION WOULD MATCH THE, THE HELM THAT WAS THERE AND THE REAR EDITION WOULD BE THE ADDITION THAT WAS APPROVED AS A C OF A.
AND THAT IS STILL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION.
WE, WE, THAT WE HAVE THE DEFERENCE TO, TO COME TO SOME RESOLUTION.
UM, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S MY QUESTION.
I I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY CORRECT.
I'M NOT SURE WE'VE EVER SEEN THIS TYPE OF A SITUATION BEFORE.
SO, UM, I WOULD ASK IF THE PRIOR PLANS ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING.
I DO THINK YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPTION OF LOOKING AT THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN, THEY'RE IN THE APPLICATION AF NO, AFTER THE DEADLINE.
THE, THE ONES THAT WERE PUT UP ON THE DOCUMENT CAMERA ON THE DOCUMENT CAMERA.
THE, THAT'S THE REVISED ONES, CORRECT.
[01:00:01]
YES, MA'AM.SO YOU COULD, THEY WERE NOT IN THOSE, I BELIEVE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET BECAUSE THEY CAME IN SO LATE.
AND YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE NEW POSTING DEADLINES, EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING IT ALL PUT TOGETHER FOR YOU ALL AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
AND IF YOU NEEDED MORE TIME TO LOOK AT THOSE, UM, OR EVALUATE EVEN REALLY ALL THREE, YOU COULD DEFER THE ITEM.
THAT'S STILL AN OPTION AS WELL.
BUT I GUESS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, AT LEAST, OR AT LEAST MY QUESTION IS WE HAVE YES, THE APPROVED C OF A, WE HAVE WHAT'S SUBMITTED IN THE PACKET AND WE HAVE WHAT WAS JUST SLIPPED INTO THE DOCUMENT CAMERA.
THOSE THREE ITEMS COULD BE ONE OF THOSE THREE ITEMS OR YOU KNOW, ALL OF THEM COULD BE EVALUATED BY THIS COMMISSION.
AND OR OTHER OPTIONS THAT HAVE YET TO BE DISCUSSED.
AND THAT WOULD AT LEAST SATISFY THE, AT LEAST IF THOSE THREE WERE LOOKED AT, THAT WOULD BE IDENTIFY IDENTIFIABLE AND FOR THE APPEALS BOARD, WHICH THIS MAY OR MAY NOT GO TO, COULD AT LEAST U UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT WAS BASED ON IN THE WILL OF THIS COMMISSION.
SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA OPEN UP QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR DISCUSSION AND UM, I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF NEW MEMBERS, BUT THIS IS, YOU'RE, THIS IS BAPTISMAL BY FIRE, I GUESS.
SO INITIATION COMMISSIONER BLANKLY, I'M SORRY.
YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO SORT OF MONOPOLIZE THE SPEAKING, BUT, UM, I WANTED TO PICK UP ON YOUR, UH, I THINK WHAT YOU SUGGESTED A MOMENT AGO, WHICH WAS THE, THE POSSIBILITY OF GOING BACK TO THE SCHEME FOR WHICH A COA WAS ISSUED, UM, IN, I, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD PATH IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT THE SCALE AND PROPORTION ARE RESPECTED.
I THINK IT WOULD ALSO CONFLICT WITH OUR, OUR, OUR SORT OF INSTRUCTIONS TO NOT SUPPORT A KIND OF SIMULATION, UH, A NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT TRIES TO SIMULATE THE OLD, UM, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE SORT OF MUDDYING THE WATERS ABOUT WHAT THAT, UH, OLD, UM, STYLE WAS.
SO, UH, MAYBE THERE NEEDS TO BE A FOURTH, A FOURTH OPTION, WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN MENTIONED WOULD BE TO BUILD TO, TO PROPO MAKE A NEW PROPOSAL, A REVISED PROPOSAL THAT ADHERES TO THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ONE FOR WHICH THE COA WAS, UH, ISSUED, BUT WITHOUT SIMULATING THE ORIGINAL STYLE.
SO FOR THIS ITEM, UH, FOR LEGAL, UM, IF ONE WANTED TO VOTE, I MEAN, I THINK THEY, I THINK THAT I'M GONNA ASK FOR A MOTION ULTIMATELY ON WHAT WAS APP WAS SUBMITTED.
UH, AND WHETHER, AND WE COULD, AGAIN, WE COULD PUT THE DOCKET CAMERA UP AND VOTE ON THE REVISED SUBMITTED, YOU KNOW, DRAWING JUST BECAUSE IT'S, IT IS VERY SIMILAR ACTUALLY TO WHAT'S IN THE PACKET.
BUT DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT VOTE IS, IF WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM YOUR SUGGESTION, MR. BLAKELY, IS THAT THE FORM OF, THAT THE MASSING COULD REMAIN THIS, BUT IT WOULD NEED TO NOT LOOK OLD, I MEAN, OF OUR TIME.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST AT THAT POINT WE'D HAVE TO DEFER BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER DRAWING FOR THEM TO CREATE WHAT THAT WOULD BE.
UM, I THINK ESSENTIALLY WHAT MY BASIC THAT THERE'S A CONFLICT I THINK BETWEEN WHAT STAFF HAS REPORTED ABOUT HOW THE HOUSE CAME UNDONE AND WHAT THE APPEALS BOARD RULED.
THE DIFFERENCE THERE IS JUST THAT IF IT IS ILLEGAL DEMOLITION, AS MR. DAVIS MENTIONED, THEN THERE'S PRESCRIPTIVELY, THE APPLICANT CANNOT BILL BACK MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN EXISTED ON THE PROPERTY UNTIL THIS CERTAIN TIME PERIOD HAS PASSED.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT FROM, FROM THE APPEALS BOARD, THAT OPTION IS NOT PART OF OUR CURRENT DISCUSSION.
SO, SO THERE'S NOT NEED TO DISCUSS THAT.
AND SO WE'RE EITHER LOOKING FOR WHAT FORM WE THINK MASSING IS APPROPRIATE, AND BECAUSE IT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION NOW WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A FALSE PAST QUESTION.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HAD THIS SCENARIO HAPPEN.
BUT THE ONE TIME THIS OCCURRED, UM, WHERE THERE WAS A WILLFUL DEMOLITION, THE COMMISSION DID ALLOW THE, THE FRONT STRUCTURE TO BE REBUILT MATCHING WHAT WAS THERE.
AND THE, THE ADDITION THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR CFA WAS ALSO ALLOWED.
THAT'S 'CAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY OTHER TIME, THIS IS THE, LIKE, THE SECOND TIME THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED.
UM, BUT IN THAT CASE WE DID, JUST SO Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR, WE DID DENY THEM THE ABILITY TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY UNIT ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY AS IT WAS CLASSIFIED AS AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION.
[01:05:01]
SO WE WERE, IN MY OPINION, GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO LET THEM BUILD, IT WAS A SINGLE STORY HOUSE WITH A SINGLE STORY JUST REAR EDITION THAT WAS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT WE DID, DID NOT ALLOW THEM TO DO ANY OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS.GINGER BUR, JUST A QUESTION ARE ARE THEY ASKING THOUGH TO, TO HAVE THAT OPTION? IT LOOKS LIKE THE PROPOSED, UM, PLAN HERE IS THEY'RE ACCEPTING, THE OWNERS ARE ACCEPTING THAT THAT ORIGINAL, THAT IT'S GONE NOW.
AND SO THEY HAVE A NEW PROPOSAL OF A NEW CONSTRUCTION.
SO I'M WONDERING IF THEY WOULD EVEN BE OPEN TO REBUILDING WHAT WAS THERE AND ACCEPTING THAT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
JUST A THOUGHT THAT'S A QUESTION WE WOULD NORMALLY ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY WERE HERE IN THE ROOM.
UH, THIS AT THIS MOMENT, BUT THEY'RE, WELL, I MEAN WE CAN ASK THAT QUESTION.
IS THAT NO, BECAUSE IT WASN'T AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION.
AND ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, EXCUSE ME, YOU HAVE TO COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME.
THIS IS A QUESTION SO YOU CAN SPEAK ON THE MICROPHONE AND, AND CAN RESTATE YOUR NAME PLEASE.
HELLO, KATE SIMMONS, UH, REPRESENTING VET.
IT WAS NOT AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOME CONTEXT FOR SOME OF THE HARMFUL RHETORIC THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED TODAY.
THE DAY OF THE COLLAPSE WAS THE DAY THAT WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT STORM COME THROUGH THE HEIGHTS.
HIGH WINDS CAUSED DESTRUCTION ACROSS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE DEMOLITIONS TEAM, THEIR FAULT OR THE STORM HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED.
SO STATING THAT IT WAS JUST FAULTY DEMOLITION IT, THERE WAS A VERY STRONG WIND STORM THAT DAY.
AND ADDITIONALLY I WAS THERE WHEN THE HISTORIC DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF HOUSTON, NUMEROUS TIMES APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF THAT HISTORIC BRICK OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
THE OWNER CALLED AND SAID, ARE YOU SURE I WILL NOT GET RID OF A SINGLE BRICK IF YOU TELL ME NOT TO? AND THIS DEPARTMENT, THE COMMITTEE, AND THE CITY OF HOUSTON ALL AGREED, YES, GET RID OF IT.
YOU CAN REMOVE IT, COME A FEW MONTHS LATER.
NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S USED AS AN ATTACK TOWARDS THE OWNERS.
SO IT WAS NOT AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION.
THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT OPEN TO DISCUSSING THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.
I PLEASE DON'T ANSWER TERRANCE.
UM, I AM SORRY, BUT SOME THINGS I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESPOND TO.
UM, I'M, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT, UM, I WAS ON A SITE VISIT WHEN I RECEIVED A CALL WHEN NOT FAR AWAY FROM NORTH HILL.
UM, THERE WAS A DRIZZLE, UM, AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
AS FAR AS THE BRICK IS CONCERNED, UM, THERE WERE NOT SEVERAL CALLS MADE TO ME.
I, I'M THE PLANNER ON THE PROJECT.
THERE WERE NOT SEVERAL CALLS MADE TO ME ABOUT THE BRICK.
UM, WE DID GO TO THE SITE, PETE STOCKTON, THE, UH, HISTORIC INSPECTOR AND I, PETE, DID MENTION GETTING RID OF THE BRICK BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MATCH IT.
THE FOLLOW THE COMMENT MADE DIRECTLY AFTER THAT WAS, DO NOT GET RID OF THE BRICK UNTIL THE HAHC MAKES A DECISION THAT WAS REITERATED TWO OR THREE TIMES.
BUT I'M PRETTY SURE I JUST HEARD THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER IT WAS AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION OR NOT AN ILLEGAL DE DEMOLITION THAT IS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE.
WHAT WE NOW HAVE TO DETERMINE IS WHAT CAN BE BUILT THERE.
UM, AND I'M NOT SURE, I, I, I DON'T KNOW.
THERE IS NO GUIDANCE TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THEM BUILD A REPLICA.
UM, AND, AND THAT WOULD BE KIND OF AS A PUNISHMENT, I GUESS.
UM, AS OPPOSED TO ALLOWING THEM TO DO A NEW CONSTRUCTION.
SO I, I THINK WE'RE OFF THE ILLEGAL DEMOLITION AND ONTO WHAT CAN WE PUT BACK AND WHY, MR. CHAIR? YES, PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, COULD YOU PLEASE RESTATE THE OPTION NUMBER FOUR THAT YOU PROPOSED A FEW MINUTES AGO? AND THEN COULD THE APPLICANT TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE OPEN
[01:10:01]
TO THAT OPTION? UH, SO IT WAS TO BUILD, TO BRING US A PROPOSAL THAT FITS THE SCALE AND PROPORTIONS, HEIGHT, AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF WHAT WAS, UH, WHAT THE COA WAS ISSUED FOR, RIGHT? SO NOT JUST WHAT HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE AND I'M, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ADVOCATE A SIMULATION OF WHAT WAS THERE.SO THIS WOULD BE A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD HAVE TO FIT OUR CRITERIA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
IF WE DO SET ASIDE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE DEMOLITION WAS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL, THESE CRITERIA STILL, UH, APPLY AND THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THEM.
UH, SO THE OPTION FOUR WAS BRING US A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, I'LL JUST SAY, I MEAN, I THINK THIS COMMISSION MAY NEED TO VOTE ON THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US UP OR DOWN, UM, AS WELL.
I MEAN, IN ADDITION, UM, TO JUST TO TEST THE WATERS WITH, DEAL WITH THE FULL COMMISSION, THAT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT, THEY MAY JUST ASK US TO VOTE UP OR DOWN ON WHAT, WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED.
AND, AND THEN DEPENDING ON THAT VOTE, MAY OTHER DISCUSSIONS MAY ALSO OCCUR.
SO, UM, SO CHAIR, I THINK MAYBE HEATING LEGAL'S ADVICE THAT WE SHOULD SEPARATE THE TWO ISSUES.
'CAUSE WE CAN CERTAINLY VOTE ON THE FIRST ONE.
UM, IN THE SECOND ONE, I WOULD PROBABLY, AT THIS POINT, GIVEN THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING IN HAVING THREE OR FOUR OPTIONS AND THE FACT THAT THE CURRENT DESIGN DOESN'T REALLY MEET THE GUIDELINES, THAT WE WOULD DEFER THE SECOND ONE AND ALLOW THEM TIME TO DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT BETTER MEETS THE GUIDELINES IF WE'RE TREATING IT AS NEW CONSTRUCTION, SO THAT IT WOULD BE A PRODUCT OF ITS OWN TIME, AND THAT IT WOULD ALSO FIT FROM A SCALE AND MASSING STANDPOINT WITH THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I CAN MAKE THAT A MOTION IF YOU'D LIKE.
I, I ENTERTAIN MOTIONS AT ALL TIMES.
UM, THE BEATING IS MUCH FASTER.
SO I'LL MOVE TO EX STEP STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM ONE, WHICH IS ISSUANCE OF A COR FOR THE DEMOLITION AS PRESCRIBED BY THE APPEALS BOARD.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? THOSE MOTIONS PASS.
AND WE WILL MOVE ON, I BELIEVE.
SO I WOULD THEN MOVE ON THE SET TO DEFER ITEM, THE SECOND PORTION OF IT, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE NEW CONSTRUCT, DEFER THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADVISED THE, THE APPLICANT THAT THEY SHOULD READ THE ORDINANCE AND, YOU KNOW, PAY ATTENTION TO THE SIZE, THE MASSING, THE SCALE OF THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE CONTEXT AREA, WHICH IS DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE.
UM, AND YOU KNOW THAT IT SHOULD NOT TRY TO MIMIC NECESSARILY ALL THE ELEMENTS OF, OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION? AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY.
MOTION PASSES AND I BELIEVE WE'LL MOVE ON.
UH, CHAIR
I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
AGENDA ITEM C NINE AT 1535 OXFORD STREET.
THE SITE CONTAINS A NON-CONTRIBUTING TWO STORY FRAME RESIDENCE AND A TWO STORY FRAME DETACHED GARAGE SITUATED ON A 6,600 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT.
IT'S AN ALTERED RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1935, LOCATED IN THE HOUSTON HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT EAST.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE FOLLOWING TO ALTER, UH, THE FENESTRATION AND, UM, A FEW WINDOWS ON THE MAIN, UM, ON, ON THE ELEVATION.
AND TO ALTER THE MAIN ENTRANCE ON THIS NON-CONTRIBUTING TWO STORY HOUSE, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR.
[01:15:01]
ALSO PROPOSES TO CONNECT THE MAIN HOUSE TO THE GARAGE WITH A, WITH A PORCH ON THE FIRST FLOOR.AND, UM, TO CONNECT THE GARAGE APARTMENT ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO THE MAIN HOUSE WITH AN UNCOVERED BREEZEWAY.
ALL NEW WINDOWS PROPOSED, UM, WILL NEED TO BE INSET AND RECESSED.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT CREATES AN INSET AFTER THE EXISTING, UM, CORNER BEFORE THE ADDITION ON THE NORTH ELEVATION FOR TWO FEET TO MEET THE HEIGHTS.
MEASURABLE STANDARDS FOR SITE SETBACKS, CUMULATIVE SETBACKS, AND SIDEWALL LENGTH.
AND THE ARCHITECT HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAVE ONE PERSON SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS, ADAM, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE THE APPLICANT.
ARE IS, ARE YOU COURTNEY THOMAS? YES, SIR.
I HAVE NOT DONE THIS BEFORE, SO I WAS LIKE, IS IT MY TURN? UM, HI, MY NAME IS COURTNEY THOMAS.
UM, I AM THE ARCHITECT, UH, WORKING FOR BOB AND PATTY, WHO, UH, OWN THE PROPERTY.
UM, I FIRST OF ALL WANT TO THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION ON THIS PROJECT AND, UM, YOUR DEDICATION TO MAKING HOUSTON HISTORIC AREA BEAUTIFUL.
UM, I, UH, WITH THIS PROPERTY WE SORT OF WENT THROUGH IT AND DID LIKE A BIG BIGGER EXPANSION AND REDUCED DOWN TO THIS SMALLER PIECE.
UM, AND IN THAT, KNOWING IT'S NOT A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, UM, AND WE'RE MEETING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THE PROPERTY LOT, UM, PIECES WE WERE HOPING THAT WE COULD, UM, ALSO STICK WITH ON ONE SIDE.
BASICALLY THE PROPERTY, UM, IS NOT SET BACK FIVE FEET.
THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS SET BACK LIKE THREE FEET, THREE INCHES.
AND IN, WHEN WE WERE DOING THE DESIGN, WE WANTED TO STICK WITH THAT ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE ARCHITECT, UM, IN SYMMETRY AND IN SPACE.
UM, BASICALLY WHEN YOU LIKE LOOK AT THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE, UM, THAT ONE, UH, GEOMETRY WHEN YOU LOOK BACK, WE WANTED IT TO FEEL, ESPECIALLY ON THE FIRST FLOOR, LIKE IT IS ONE PIECE AND NOT HAVE LIKE A SETBACK WHEN YOU LOOK THROUGH THE WHOLE HOUSE.
UM, SO WE REALLY WANTED TO SORT OF PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THESE ITEMS TO ALSO MAKE THE INTERIOR SPACE BEAUTIFUL FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING IN IT.
UM, BOTH OF THESE PIECES ARE LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY WHERE YOU WON'T SEE THEM.
UM, AND THE PROPERTY ALSO SITS ON THE INTERIOR.
UM, AND YEAH, WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP WITH THE ORIGINAL SETBACK AND WE'RE SORT OF RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THE DISTRICT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER? OKAY, THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF.
OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOW.
AND, UM, I GUESS, UH, FOR STAFF, COULD YOU RESTATE YOUR, UM, RECOMMENDATION? SURE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANTS CREATE AN INSET AFTER THE EXISTING CORNER, BEFORE THE ADDITION ON THE NORTH ELEVATION FOR TWO FEET TO MEET THE HEIGHTS MEASURABLE STANDARDS FOR SIDE SETBACKS AND SIDEWALL LENGTH AND YASMINE, THAT'S JUST PART OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES.
SO, UM, IF THIS WAS ONE STORY, THE THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES ALLOW HER TO MEET, UM, THE CURRENT SITE SETBACK THAT SHE HAS.
BUT BECAUSE IT'S TWO STORY, IT, IT DOES SPECIFY IN THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT IT HAS TO BE, UM, AT FIVE AND ALSO THE CUMULATIVE SITE SETBACKS HAS TO BE 15, WHICH I BELIEVE NOW IS 13 SOMETHING.
UM, AND I I FOR A TWO STORY, UH, SIDEWALL LENGTH, IT HAS TO BE 40.
AND WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION NOW IT'S OVER 40.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHY, UM, READING THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS STAFF FELT THAT, UM, WE HAVE TO MENTION THAT THAT CONDITION WILL, WILL SOLVE THAT.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT UP THAT STANDARD FOR THE COMMISSION MEMBERS THAT ARE NEW
[01:20:01]
CAN YOU, YEAH, IF YOU ZOOM IN ON THE, YEAH, MR.
AND I JUST FIND THE EAST ELEVATION, YOU KNOW, THIS HOUSE IS FAIRLY CHARMING FROM THE FRONT.
IT, IT, IT CERTAINLY FITS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, MAYBE MINUS THE CARPORT EXTENSION, BUT THIS PROTRUDING KIND OF SECOND FLOOR, YOU KNOW, THAT'S RIGHT UP AT THE STREET LEVEL REALLY, REALLY CHANGES THE APPEARANCE OF THE HOUSE.
AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST, I DON'T FIND IT TO BE VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE, HIS CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS OF STAFF COMMISSIONER DAVIS? OKAY, SO JUST, UM, FOR CLARIFICATION, SINCE IT IS A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THAT LOOKS LIKE A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, UM, UH, NOT SURE WHY IT'S NOT CONTRIBUTING, BUT I'M SURE THERE MUST BE A GOOD REASON.
UM, SO THEN, AND ALL OF THIS IS GOING ON AT THE BACK OF THE STRUCTURE, CORRECT? AND IS IT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET? MAY, MAY I RESPOND.
SO, UM, THIS WAS BUILT IN 1935, BUT BECAUSE, UM, WHEN THEY SERVED, THEY, IT WAS HEAVILY ALTERED THAT THEY DECIDED THAT, THAT THIS IS NOT CONTRIBUTING ANYMORE.
UM, AND THEN THE, THE SECOND PART IS ALTERATIONS TO NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES CAN BE ADMINISTRATIVE IF THE PERCENTAGE OF THE ALTERATIONS ARE 67% AND, UM, AND LESS, UM, WITH, WITH THE ALTERATIONS OF THE FENESTRATION, THE ADDITIONS, THE PORCH AND, UM, AND THE BREEZEWAY AND, AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS BEING ADDED, UM, STAFF FELT THAT THIS IS GOING BEYOND THE 67% AND THAT IS WHY IT IS APPEARING IN FRONT OF YOU.
UM, IN HEIGHT'S DESIGN GUIDELINES, WHETHER IT'S CONTRIBUTING OR NOT CONTRIBUTING THE MEASURABLE STANDARDS TREAT THE BUILDINGS THE SAME.
THE CRITERIA IS DIFFERENT, BUT LIKE IF YOU ARE BUILDING A NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NON-CONTRIBUTING, IT STILL HAS TO MEET THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK, FOR EXAMPLE, AND, AND SO ON.
SO I THINK THE CONDITION, BUT YOU, YOU APPROVE OF THE SUBMISSION WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT MEET THE MEASURABLE STANDARD.
RIGHT? AND, AND IT, IT'S A CASE, IT IT'S A CASE BY CASE.
UM, UM, SOMETIMES THE COMMISSION IN CERTAIN UNIQUE SITUATIONS DO FEEL THAT THEY MIGHT, UM, LET GO OF A CERTAIN CONDITION, BUT FROM STAFF POINTS OF VIEW, UM, WE, WE, WE TYPICALLY, UH, WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS MISERABLE STANDARDS.
IS THAT CLEAR? IS THAT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, IS THERE A MOTION OR? I, I MAKE A MOTION.
WE APPROVE, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH CONDITIONS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ANY ABSTENTIONS? MOTION PASSES.
AND WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 10.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON SAMANTHA DEION.
I SUBMIT ITEM C 10 AT 10 0 8 EAST 14TH STREET IN NOR HILL.
FROM YOUR CONSIDERATION, THE HOUSE IS A CONTRIBUTING 1,976 SQUARE FOOT.
TWO STORY WOOD FRAMED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1926, SITUATED ON A 5,250 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADD A 538 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE SECOND FLOOR WITH THE ROOF PITCH TO MATCH.
THE EXISTING HOME IS THE EXISTING HISTORIC HOME.
THE APPLICANT PLANS TO MAKE THE ADDITION EVE HEIGHT 20 FEET AND 10 INCHES, AND THE RIDGE HEIGHT IS PROPOSED TO BE AT 28 FEET FOUR INCHES.
SIDING IS PROPOSED TO BE A THREE AND A HALF INCH FIBER CEMENT SIDING REVEAL WITH A PROPOSED ONE OVER ONE JEL WOOD WIN.
UH, JELD WIND WOOD WINDOWS TOWARDS THE REAR STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE SECOND FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT BE LOWERED TO EIGHT FEET AND THAT THE ROOF OF THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION BE HIT CHAIRS AND CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
[01:25:01]
THE AGENT SAM KOS, IS AVAILABLE TO SPEAK.I AM ALSO AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I WILL, AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAVE A COUPLE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP, UH, STARTING WITH SAM.
YOU, YOU, YOU GET A REBUTTAL IF, WELL, IF YOU GO FIRST, I MEAN, IT'S UP TO YOU.
ALRIGHT, I CAN GO FIRST AS THE APPLICANT.
I, I'LL GIVE YOU SOME, SOME WELCOME EVERYBODY.
THAT'S, IT'S EXCITING, ISN'T IT? UH, SAM, WITH CREOLE DESIGN, I'VE BEEN IN THE HEIGHTS SINCE 76 AND, UM, AND I'M UP HERE A LOT, UNFORTUNATELY OR FORTUNATELY.
UM, THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE HAS AN EXISTING TWO STORY ADDITION ON IT, WHICH ONLY TAKES UP HALF THE HOUSE.
THEY BUILT IT FROM THE, UH, LOW BRAIN WALL TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE EXTERIOR WALL.
AND IN THE BACK, IT ACTUALLY HAS A SEVEN FOOT CEILING IN THIS LITTLE SPACE IN THE BACK.
SO WHEN I MET WITH THE CLIENT, THEY WANTED TO ADD ONTO IT, I SAID, WELL, WE OUGHT TO TAKE THIS SECOND FLOOR OFF AND JUST WIDEN IT.
SO WE HAVE, WE'RE WALL TO WALL, WE'RE AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
WE'RE 28 FEET BACK FROM, UH, FROM THE BACK PROPERTY LINE.
SO WE'RE, WE DON'T RUN INTO THOSE KIND OF PROBLEMS AND, AND WE'RE ONLY ADDING 500 SQUARE FEET TO IT.
WE MEET ALL OF THE CITY CODE, WE MEET ALL THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT, UH, ARE IN PLACE IN NOR HILL.
UM, NOR HILL HAS A THREE FOOT SIDE SETBACK.
THEY HAVE A 40 FOOT RIDGE HEIGHT AND THEIR DEED RESTRICTIONS WE'RE UNDER ALL, ALL OF THEIR DEED RESTRICTIONS.
SO, UM, SO I FELT LIKE THIS WOULD GO THROUGH.
SHE SAID, HEY, MAKE A HIP ROOF ON THE FRONT OF IT AND DROP YOUR PLATE HEIGHT ON THE SECOND FLOOR FROM NINE TO EIGHT, WHICH WE DID.
AND I THINK IT, I THINK IT LOOKS, I THINK IT LOOKS GOOD THERE AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE GOT APPROVED.
NEXT SPEAKER IS VIRGINIA KELSEY.
I'M THE DEED RESTRICTIONS VICE PRESIDENT OF NOR HILL.
UM, EVEN THOUGH THE OWNER SAM NOR THE OWNER, SAM SAM'S NOT THE OWNER, I'M SORRY, NEITHER OWNER OR SAM WITH CREOLE DESIGN, THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THE PLANS TO NOR HILL.
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE SUBMISSION MATERIAL, UH, FROM WHAT WAS AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR ITS COMPLIANCE WITH OUR NNA GUIDELINES, WHICH HAVE BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD.
THEY'RE RECORDED WITH THE STATE.
THEY'RE LEGALLY BINDING THOUGH HAHC IS NOT OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW THE NNA GUIDELINES.
THEY DO SERVE TO DEFINE WHAT IS IN HARMONY WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY ARE BASED ON THE POLLING BY THE CITY AND THE DRAFT THAT THE CITY HAS DEVELOPED.
THE HOUSE'S PREVIOUS EDITION HAS A LOW SECOND FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT THAT RESPECTS THE ORIGINAL BUNGALOW, BUT MINIMIZES ITS IMPACT.
CAN YOU PUT THE DOCUMENT CAMERA? THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS TOO TALL AT NINE FOOT PLATE, NOR HILL DOES NOT APPROVE ANY SECOND FLOOR, WHICH IS, HAS A PLATE HEIGHT TALLER THAN EIGHT FEET.
OWNERS COULD EASILY VAULT THE INSIDE AS THEY WISH.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS 25 24 SQUARE FEET.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSENSUS FOR MAXIMUM HOUSE SIZE FOR THIS LOT IS 2250.
WITH ALL THE ADDITION BEING ON THE SECOND FLOOR, THE MASSING OVERPOWERS THE ORIGINAL BUNGALOW, BOTH IN TERMS OF ITS HEIGHT AND SIZE.
CURRENTLY THE HOUSE APPEARS TO SIT LESS THAN THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE WITH THE SECOND FLOOR BEING REMOVED AND REPLACED.
THE FLOOR PLAN FOR THE SECOND FLOOR IS DIFFERENT THAN THE EXISTING.
THEY SHOULD SET BACK THE SECOND FLOOR TO FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHS, YOU CAN SEE HOW CLOSE AND IMPOSING THE EXISTING IS.
AND SO IF THAT MASS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY TALLER AND BIGGER, IT'S AN EVEN LARGER MASS ON TOP OF THE HOUSE.
SO IN SUMMARY, WE ASK THAT THEY REDUCE THE HEIGHT, THE SIZE, AND THE SETBACK TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LETHA ALLEN.
I LIVE IN NOR HILL, A FEW STREETS AWAY FROM 14TH STREET.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE, REITERATE THE POINTS THAT VIRGINIA HA HAS MADE ABOUT, UM, WE ASKED THAT THE HEIGHT BE REDUCED, THE SIZE BE REDUCED, AND THE SETBACK
[01:30:01]
BE CHANGED, UM, TO OUR GUIDELINES.UM, 2,500 SQUARE FEET IS TOO LARGE FOR NOR HILL.
WE ARE NOT, WE, I GUESS WE ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE GREATER HEIGHTS.
WE ARE NOT THE HEIGHTS OR WOODLAND HEIGHTS, WHICH I THINK IS CONFUSING TO SOME PEOPLE.
WE ARE A NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, COMPOSED OF MODEST HOUSES THAT WERE SOME SMALLER THAN A A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, THAT, THAT STILL EXIST, UM, AT THAT SIZE.
UM, SO, UM, THE, PER THE PEOPLE THAT I LOOKED AT EACH HCA AND DETERMINED THAT THE OWNERS BOUGHT THIS HOUSE FIVE YEARS AGO, UM, THESE EXPECTATIONS, UM, THEY WOULD'VE UNDERSTOOD THESE EXPECTATIONS WHEN THEY BOUGHT INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF THEY DID ANY SORT OF DUE DILIGENCE.
UM, I BOUGHT MY HOUSE AT THE SAME TIME.
UM, IT'S 1400 SQUARE FEET AND IT HAD ALREADY HAD AN ADDITION ADDED TO IT.
SO, UM, IT'S A, THIS IS NOT A, THIS MAY BE AN AVERAGE SIZE HOUSE IN THE SUBURBS OR WOODLAND HEIGHTS, BUT IT'S VERY OUT OF SCALE FOR NOR HILL.
AND ONCE AGAIN, IT WOULD SET A POOR PRECEDENT TO APPROVE THIS.
IS THERE ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAS NOT SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF.
AND IF THAT, SAM, YOU DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A REBUTTAL.
UH, SAM JANUK IS CREOLE DESIGN.
UH, THE PHOTO THAT YOU, SHE SHOWED OF THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, UH, VIRGINIA SHOWED, UH, THAT CEILING HEIGHT ON THE SECOND FLOOR IS ACTUALLY EIGHT FOOT TWO, AND WE DROPPED IT TO EIGHT FOOT.
SO WE'RE ACTUALLY LOWER THAN WHAT IS EXISTING THERE, UH, THAT YOU JUST SAW.
AND, AND AS FAR AS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES GO, THERE ARE NO DESIGN GUIDELINES IN NOR HILL.
THAT, THAT IS FOUR PEOPLE THAT GOT TOGETHER AND VOTED ON THESE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
AND NOW THEY SAY THEY FILED IT OF RECORD, WHICH TO ME IS CLOUDING TITLE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO DESIGN GUIDELINES IN NOR HILL CURRENTLY.
I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO.
BUT THAT WHOLE STORY ABOUT DESIGN GUIDELINES, THAT TELLING PEOPLE THERE'S DESIGN GUIDELINES.
SO THERE ARE NO FORMAL DESIGN GUIDELINES.
AND WE, WE FOLLOW ALL THE DEED RESTRICTIONS, WE FOLLOW ALL THE CITY CODE, WE FOLLOW ALL THE RULES, AND WE ALSO DID WHAT SAMANTHA ASKED US TO DO, WHICH IS LOWER PLATE HEIGHT THAN WHAT IS EXISTING.
SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR ANY OTHER YES, I, I'VE GOT A QUESTION PLEASE.
UM, AND AS A NEW MEMBER, FORGIVE ME IF THIS IS OVERLY SIMPLISTIC.
UM, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT JUST HAPPENED, AND WE'VE GOT, UM, THE BUILDER SLASH OWNER AGREEING TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT TO EIGHT FEET AND HIPPING.
UM, AND THEREFORE, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THE NEIGHBORS ARE ADDRESSING ONE OF THE APPROVAL CRITERIA THROUGH NOR HILL'S OWN BUILDING RESTRICTIONS.
UM, WHICH IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, IS SOMETHING I SUPPOSE WE CAN CONSIDER UNDER OUR APPROVAL CRITERIA, BUT WE ARE NOT BOUND BY, WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT BOUND.
THE, THE ONLY CRITERIA THAT THIS COMMISSION IS BOUND BY IS, IS ARE THINGS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OR PREVIOUS COMMISSIONS AND ARE THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.
SO WE'RE ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE UNDER THE BASIC CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT THAT'S WHAT WE ARE BOUND BY.
UM, THERE ARE, UM, THERE, THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS WITH, UM, THE NOR HILL ASSOCIATION AND, AND MEMBERS TO CREATE GUIDELINES AND, UH, AND THEY'RE WORKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THE SYSTEM.
AND I MIGHT PERHAPS MR. WILLIAMSON CAN TELL US WHEN THOSE WILL, YOU KNOW, COME OUT.
TYPICALLY WE'RE, THEY'RE GOING TO IT, THERE'S, THERE'S ANOTHER PROCESS TO HAPPEN.
IT'LL COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION.
AND WHEN, LIKE, WHEN WE VOTE ON THINGS, WE'RE NOT APPROVING ANYTHING.
WE'RE, WE'RE JUST RECOMMENDING TO A CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY, UM, APPROVE SOMETHING.
BUT AT THIS TIME, THOSE DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE NOT PART OF OUR PURVIEW.
IF, IF MY, IF THAT'S MY FROM, UH, FROM OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
SO WE HAVE THE ORDINANCE, UM, AND THE CRITERIA AND, AND, AND STAFF HAS A RECOMMENDATION.
SO, UM, THE DROPPING THE PLATE TO EIGHT FEET AND MAKING A HIP IS WHAT WAS ON THE DRAWING THAT WAS PRESENTED ON THE SCREEN IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
QUICK QUESTION, UH, STAFF PERSON, SAMANTHA DE LEONE.
SO, UH, SAM WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THEM BACK TO ME, BUT HE DOES HAVE A PHYSICAL COPY THAT I CAN SHOW.
IT'S A RENDERING WITH THE HIP ROOF AND THE LOWERED PLATE HEIGHT.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THAT, I THINK THAT'D BE HELPFUL.
[01:35:06]
AS STATED BY, UH, AS YOU, BY YOU COMMISSIONERS AND BY LEGAL, UM, THE NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES HAVE NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY PASSED YET.AND THIS MET ALL OF THE OTHER CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE.
UH, AND ALSO SAM ALSO AGREED TO THE APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
SO, UH, TOTAL WITH THE 538 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, IT BRINGS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 2,514.
UH, SO STAFF FELT THAT, UH, THIS WAS AN APPROVAL.
MAY I ASK A FOLLOW UP PLEASE? AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE APPROVAL CRITERIA, UM, THIS IS AN EXCLUSIVE LIST OF CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION.
UH, THIS IS THE, OUR LIST OF CRITERIA, WHICH YOU ALSO HAVE IN YOUR PACKET, UH, FROM IS, IS THE, IS THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE, UH, FOR WHEN WE DON'T, IF WE DON'T HAVE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN A DISTRICT, THEN THE CRITERIA CORRECT.
WHETHER IT BE FORTOR FOR CONTRIBUTING OR NOT CONTRIBUTING, THEY'RE, THEY'RE DIFFERENT.
BUT THOUGH THAT IS THE CRITERIA THAT WE, WE UTILIZE, YES.
ARE EACH, UH, AFFORDED EQUAL WEIGHT? NO, I THINK, UM, I THINK SO.
I MEAN, TYPICALLY I THINK THAT OFTEN THEY'RE LIKE MULTIPLE CRITERIA.
LIKE IF YOU'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE, IT, IT'S GONNA BE MULTIPLE, IT, IT'S GONNA TOUCH ON DIFFERENT THINGS.
BUT IT'S, IT'S, UH, FOR THIS ONE, I THINK IT'S ABOUT THE, THE QUESTION IS ABOUT THE MASSING, BASICALLY.
AND, AND AS THE SPEAKERS TALKED ABOUT, NOR HILL IS ONE OF THE MOST, THE HOMES ARE MUCH MORE MINIATURE, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE LOT SMALLER IN SCALE THAN ALL OF THE OTHER HEIGHTS DISTRICTS.
AND SO, UM, IF YOU WALK DOWN THE STREET, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT KIND OF VIBE.
JUST LIKE
SO, UM, SCALE HERE IS MAGNIFIED.
SO IF WE'RE DEALING WITH A HYPOTHETICAL, FOR EXAMPLE, IF, IF WE HAVE, UM, TWO SATISFACTORY AND ONE NON SATISFACTORY, MUST WE PROVIDE EACH ONE EQUAL WEIGHT? UH, OR CAN WE USE OUR OWN DISCRETION ON WHAT WE MAY FEEL IS MORE RELEVANT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD? UH, I THINK THE REAL ANSWER IS THAT MEMBERS OF THIS BODY HAVE THE DISCRETION TO, UH, THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION REPRESENT DIFFERENT, UH, EXPERIENCES, DIFFERENT WORK, UM, EXPERIENCES, DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW.
UM, SO IT'S FINDING THE CONSENSUS THAT THIS BODY IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND.
SO, UM, UH, THERE MAY BE, I MEAN, THERE MAY BE A PRO, UH, AN ASPECT THAT DOESN'T MEET A CERTAIN CRITERIA, BUT FOR OTHER FACTORS, EVERY, EVERY PROJECT IS, IS DIFFERENT.
UM, IF MEMBERS BELIEVE THAT IT DOES SATISFY, UM, FROM THEIR OVERALL PERSPECTIVE, UM, IT IS THE DISCRETION OF THIS BODY TO YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO, TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
I THINK I'M GETTING THE, THE IDEA THAT MAYBE THE QUESTIONS RELATED TO, I THINK THEY'RE REALLY STRONG HERE, BUT LESS SO HERE.
AND I'M WILLING TO LET THIS KIND OF IS YOU'RE MAKING KIND OF A BALANCE THAT'S NOT SPECIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE.
THERE'S NOT AN IDEA OF WAITING, BUT I THINK TO THE CHAIR'S POINT, IT'S WITHIN Y'ALL'S DISCRETION.
IF YOU WANNA STATE THAT, THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING, THAT'S FINE.
UM, IF NOT, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO COMMISSIONER DAVIS.
SO, UM, MR. JANKO, IF THE, YOU SAID THAT THE PLATE HEIGHT THAT YOU HAVE PLANNED IS ACTUALLY LOWER THAN THE PLATE HEIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE? YES, MA'AM.
AND ALSO, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE'RE NOT COMING ANY FURTHER FORWARD THAN THE EXISTING SECOND FLOOR IS AN HOUR.
SO, SO WE DIDN'T TRY TO ENCROACH FORWARD AT ALL.
WE'RE, WE'RE IN LINE WITH EVERYTHING.
SO YOU WOULD SAY THE MASSING IS THE SAME OR EQUAL TO WHAT IT WAS? NO, WE ADDED 500 SQUARE FEET.
HOW, SAM HOW FAR DOES THE HOUSE OVERHANG THE SECOND FLOOR OVERHANG THE FIRST FLOOR IN, IN THE, OH, UH, I DON'T KNOW, LET ME LOOK.
THE EXISTING MENTION ON THE, ON THE ELEVATION, IT MIGHT, NO, LEMME LOOK HERE.
UM, LET, THIS IS, THIS IS THE EXISTING, UM, THIS IS WHAT'S EXISTING NOW YOU CAN SEE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS YOU.
LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND THAT DIMENSION
[01:40:01]
CURIOUS, BECAUSE IF, IF I ASK STAFF, I MEAN, IF THEY HAD PRESENTED THIS AND THE HOUSE HAD NOT OVERHANG THE FIRST FLOOR, THIS WOULD'VE BEEN A SHALLOW PROOF, CORRECT? OH YEAH.WE, WE OVERHANG IN THE BACK LIKE FOUR FEET.
SO WE CANTILEVER OUT THE BACK BY FOUR FEET.
THAT WASN'T ASKING STAFF BACK TO PRESENTATION, IF THAT'S CORRECT.
I BELIEVE IF THEY DIDN'T EXTEND BACK FOUR FEET, THEY COULD EXPAND THE WIDTH AND IT WOULD BE A SHALL APPROVE, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT, THAT IS TRUE.
SO A SHALL APPROVE IS IN THE ORDINANCE.
AND SO IF YOU DO AN ADDITION THAT IS LESS THAN 50% FORWARD IN THE EXISTING HOUSE, BUT DO NOT LEAVE THE PERIMETER OF THE EXISTING HOUSE, THEN IT IS AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED.
IT DOESN'T COME IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION, IN FACT.
SO WHAT I WAS CURIOUS IS WHAT THE SIZE WOULD BE OF THAT IF IT HAD BEEN A SHALL APPROVE VERSUS THE SIZE OF IT AS PROPOSED.
AND THIS, THE SHALL APPROVE JUST REQUIRES THAT THE SECOND STORY START 50% BACK AND NOT EXTEND OUTWARD SIDES TOWARD THE SIDES OR THE REAR.
UM, WE'RE ALL GONNA BE GREATLY, UH, UH, BENEFITING FROM THE ACTUAL, UH, GUIDELINES THAT ARE APPROVED BY THIS, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDED BY THIS BODY AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
SO THEN WE'D HAVE MORE MEASURES.
I BELIEVE THERE'S A FAR THAT IT, THAT THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, UM, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING, THERE'S A PREFERENCE WITHIN THE, THEIR SUGGESTED GUIDELINES TO MAINTAIN REAR YARD SPACE AND NOT BUILD TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALSO TRYING TO BUILD ON TOP OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE SO THAT IT'S, THERE'S SOME OPEN SPACE IN THE BACK, WHICH I GUESS THE SUBMISSION ALSO CONCURS WITH.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT, AGAIN, IT'S NOT PART OF OUR PURVIEW, BUT IT IS CLOSE TO A SHALLOW PROOF BY FOUR FEET IN MY OPINION.
BUT WE CAN LEAVE IT OFF THE BACK TO GET THAT ROOM IN.
SO, UM, AND I DON'T HAVE THAT EXACT DIMENSION FOR YOU.
AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S WHY IT COMES TO COMMISSION.
IF IT, IF IT'S NOT A SHALL APPROVE, THEN IT HAS TO COME TO THE COMMISSION TO BE INDIVIDUALLY DISCUSSED OR CONSIDERED QUESTION, SORRY, COMMISSIONER BLAKELEY.
I'M SORRY, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY BECAUSE I WAS SETTING A BAD EXAMPLE BY ASKING COMMISSIONER COSGROVE WITHOUT MY MICROPHONE ON
UM, I ASKED ABOUT THE HEIGHT BECAUSE THE, UM, PROPOSAL PRE HIPP WAS FIVE FEET TALLER, THE RIDGE HEIGHT THAN THE ORIGINAL.
SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE PLATE HEIGHT AS BEING LOWER, BUT THE RIDGE HEIGHT IS ACTUALLY HIGHER.
UM, SO, AND I ASSUME THE HIPPING WAS TO REDUCE THE IMPRESSION OF THE HEIGHT.
IS THAT THE MOTIVE? AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS, DO WE NOT CARE ABOUT HOW TALL THIS, THE RIDGE OF THIS HOUSE ADDITION IS? THE REASON THE RIDGE HEIGHT GOT TALLER IS BECAUSE THE ADDITION GOT WIDER.
SO IN ORDER TO, TO GET TO THE MIDDLE, WE HAD TO GO UP WITH IT.
NOW WE'RE AT A, A SIX AND 12 PITCH NOW WE COULD DROP THAT RIDGE, UH, TO A FOUR AND 12 OR FIVE AND 12.
IF YOU GET LESS THAN A FOUR AND 12, THOUGH, IT GETS HARD TO PUT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN THAT ATTIC.
AND SO IT GETS REALLY, YOU KNOW, BUT WE CAN DROP THE RIDGE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO STILL ALLOW FOR MECHANICAL, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.
AND YOU'RE CORRECT, I THINK WOULD BRING IT MORE IN LINE WITH THE SIZE, UH, MASSING SIZE SCALE OF THE OTHERS.
SO IF THAT'S OF THE ORIGINAL YEAH.
I THINK FOUR AND 12 IS ALSO THE MINIMUM SLOPE FOR A SHINGLE ROOF BY MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATION.
SO IT, IT'S REALLY NOT RECOMMENDED TO BE LESS THAN FOUR AND 12.
AND IT'S HARD TO GET IN THAT ATTIC.
I MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE PROVISO THAT WE ASK ALSO FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE RIDGE HEIGHT.
IS THERE A SECOND, MR. CHAIR? I, I ACTUALLY HAD ANOTHER QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK.
UM, HAS ANY, UH, THIS QUESTION IS FOR STAFF.
HAS, HAVE YOU HEARD OR HAD ANY, HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH, UH, ANY OF THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS TO THIS HOME? THIS IS STAFF PERSON SAMANTHA DELEON.
I DID NOT RECEIVE A CALL, I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY EMAILS AND FROM WHEN I CHECKED YESTERDAY, I DID NOT SEE THAT THERE WAS ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON, UH, OUR WEBSITE FOR THIS.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE.
AYE, CAN YOU ANNOUNCE YOUR NAMES WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOUR SECOND AND THEN OPPOSING.
SO I NEED THE, WHO'S SECOND? GARCIA SECOND OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS MOTION PASSES.
[01:45:01]
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR FINAL ITEM.GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRPERSON, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON CHARLES SADLER.
I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ITEM C 16, WHICH IS 10 11 LA GREENE STREET AND NOR HILL, WHICH IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING REMOVAL OF FOUR ORIGINAL WOOD, ONE OVER ONE WINDOWS AND REPLACEMENT WITH FOUR ONE OVER ONE FEX WINDOWS AND FEX.
I'LL READ YOU WHAT THAT, WHAT THAT IS.
THAT'S A RENEWAL BY ANDERSON ACCLAIM MODEL AND IT'S COMPOSED OF WOOD AND POLYMER.
AND, AND I HAVE ACTUALLY HAVE A SAMPLE HERE TOO.
SO IT'S A, IT'S A MATTE FINISH.
IT IS, UH, IT APPEARS SIMILAR TO WOOD FROM THE STREET VIEW AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY, UH, THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED.
AND SO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? UH, UM, VIRGINIA KELSEY.
I AM VIRGINIA KELSEY, VP OF NOR HILL.
UM, I JUST GOT THE SAMPLE OF THE WINDOW, NOR HILL, UM, IS NOW ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CHANGE WINDOWS IF THEY WANT TO, AS LONG AS THEY CONFORM WITH THE DESIGN AND CHARACTER OF, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE WOULD LOVE FOR EVERYBODY TO KEEP THEIR WOOD WINDOWS, UM, OR ALTER 'EM OR REPLACE 'EM WITH WOOD WINDOWS, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, OUR ISSUE IS THIS SPECIFIC WINDOW.
CAN YOU PUT THIS DOCUMENT CAMERA? UM, I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THIS MATERIAL.
IT SORT OF FEELS LIKE VINYL, BUT IT MAY BE BETTER.
BUT ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH THIS, AND WE ARE LOOKING AT OTHER WINDOWS, IS THE FRAME AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE WINDOW IS REALLY THICK.
SO IF YOU COME TO PUT THE, UM, ONE BY FOUR ON TOP OF IT OR SEPARATED, IT'S GOTTA BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BECAUSE IT COULD END UP NOT LOOKING LIKE A HISTORIC WINDOW.
SO WE'RE ALL FOR THEM REPLACING THE WINDOWS, BUT WE WOULD PREFER THEM TO REPLACE IT WITH A WOOD WINDOW OR WINDOW THAT WOULD HAVE A SMALLER FRAME SO THAT IT COULD BE BUILT IN AND APPEAR SEAMLESS WITH THE OTHER WINDOWS IN THE HOUSE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? UM, I THINK THE ONE, UM, MY QUESTION FOR STAFF, I GUESS IS IN OUR PACKET, CHARLES, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR BASIC REQUIREMENT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW OR THE ORDINANCE THAT REPLACEMENT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
IF, IF THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WINDOWS THAT NEED TO BE REPAIRED, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO REPLACE YOUR WINDOWS, THAT THAT CAN'T BE REASONABLY REPAIRED.
BUT IF THEY ARE, UH, CHANGED, UH, PER THE ORDINANCE, THEY NEED TO LOOK LIKE THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE THE SAME MATERIAL AS PER SE.
SO IT'S, IT'S EASIER IN THE HEIGHTS OR THESE, OR HILL OR OTHER PLACES TO FIND WINDOWS THAT LOOK LIKE WOOD THAT MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE WOOD OR A HUNDRED PERCENT WOOD, BUT THERE IS A PROVISION OF BEING INSET AND RECESSED.
SO AND SO, AND I KNOW THERE'S A, WITH FINAL WINDOWS TODAY, THEY'RE ALMOST IN LINE WITH EACH OTHER AND THEY'RE NOT, THE LOWER SASH IS NOT ACTUALLY RECESSED AS THIS IS, BUT THIS FRAME WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE INSET PER, PER, PER THE, UM, I THINK IT'S INCH, THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH I THINK IS WHAT'S ON YOUR WEBSITE IN, IN THE PACKET THAT COMMISSIONERS HAVE.
SO IF THAT IS IN SET, WOULD THAT NOT BE, YOU KNOW, COVERED WITH SOME JAM EXTENSION BEFORE THE CORNER BOARD? YOU KNOW, THE TRIM BOARD GOES, THE TRIM BOARD IS LESS THAN THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH.
SO THERE WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF, YOU KNOW, ONE INCH JAM EXTENDER NEEDED BETWEEN THE, THE TRIM BOARD AND THE ACTUAL FRAME OF THE WINDOW IN ORDER TO MEET THIS, WHAT, WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE SCREEN AND, UM, IS IT POSSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT THAT JAM EXTENDER AND THE, THAT THE CORNER BOARD ARE COVERING UP A PORTION OF THAT FRAME AS IT WOULD BE THE CASE WITH THE TRADITIONAL WOOD WINDOW QUESTION? YES.
UM, WHEN, UH, VIRGINIA KELSEY SHOWED THAT SAMPLE, THAT WAS ONE OF THE EARLY SAMPLES I SAW WITH THIS VERY BULKY WINDOW.
AND SO I WOULD, STAFF WAS SKEPTICAL, BUT WE, WE ACTUALLY MET WITH ONE OF THE SALESPEOPLE.
HE BROUGHT IN SAMPLES AND SO WE, WE
[01:50:01]
DETERMINED THAT IT WAS COMPATIBLE AND THEN HE ENSURED US THAT IT COULD BE INSET TO MEET THAT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT AND IT COULD BE SOMEWHAT COVERED TO NOT HAVE A VERY WIDE APPEARANCE FOR THE FRAME, WHICH WOULD NORMALLY WOULD BE ABOUT A QUARTER TO THREE EIGHTHS OF AN INCH, CORRECT? YES.AND SO THE, IT'S A LITTLE MISLEADING WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU SEE A SAMPLE THAT'S A MUCH, IT'S THE SAME MATERIAL OF THE WINDOW, BUT IT'S SHRUNK DOWN.
SO, UM, THE, WHEN IT'S A FULL-SIZE WINDOW, THESE ARE LARGE FULL-SIZE WINDOWS, IT WOULD BE, UH, LIKE THESE ARE THE PROPORTIONS OF IT.
SO IT'S, BUT WHEN YOU SEE THE SHRUNK DOWN SAMPLE, IT'S DECEPTIVE.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE.
BUT THE SAMPLE THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING, THAT'S THE SASH.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FRAME CURRENTLY, RIGHT? THE DISCUSSION WITH FROM WAS ABOUT THE FRAME.
AND SO WE WERE ACTUALLY BASING IT ON, UH, CRITERIA SIX, WHICH SAYS THAT NEW MATERIALS TO BE USED FOR ANY EXTERIOR FEATURE, EXCLUDING WHAT IS VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC ALLEYS MUST BE VIS VISUALLY COMPATIBLE WITH, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME AS THE MATERIALS BEING REPLACED IN FORM DESIGN, TEXTURE, AND SCALE.
BUT A CONDITION COULD BE PUT ON THE APPROVAL THAT THE FRAME BE OBSCURED TO MATCH AN ACTUAL WOOD WINDOW OF THE APPEARANCE, THEREFORE TO MATCH THE ORDINANCE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THE ITEM? YES, PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER HILL, HAS ANYBODY MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THE EXISTING WINDOWS ARE NON-REPAIRABLE? UH, YES.
SO WE HAVE, WE'VE DOCUMENTED, THERE'S, THERE'S SOME PHOTOS IN THERE.
SO STAFF VISITED AND WE DETERMINED THAT THEY WERE BEYOND REPAIR.
SO THAT'S GENERALLY LIKE 50% OF THE WINDOW IS, UH, EXPERIENCED WATER DAMAGE.
AND SO THAT'S, SO WE, WE DID DETERMINE THAT.
WAS THAT IN THE FORM OF ROT OR WAS IT IN THE FORM OF THE GLAZING COMING OFF? UH, IT WAS, UH, WARPING, SO IT WAS, THE WOOD ITSELF WAS BEYOND REPAIR, LIKE ABOUT 50%.
UM, AS I'M READING THIS, UH, IF I'M READING IT RIGHT, THESE ARE JUST WINDOWS ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO VISUALLY YOU WOULDN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE VERY MUCH BETWEEN THE FRONT AND THE SIGNS, JUST YOU'RE AS, AS, UH, WINDOWS ARE OFTEN A, A REPEAT TOPIC OF THIS COMMISSION AND THERE'LL, YOU KNOW, I I THINK THERE'LL BE NEW DISCUSSIONS WITH NEW MEMBERS, BUT, UM, THERE'S CERTAINLY A DEFERENCE TO THE FRONT FACADE AND ALSO TO THE SIDE NEAREST TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS CLOSER TO WHAT YOU SEE.
THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE.
WE COULD PUT IT UP PERHAPS THAT JUST ADDRESSES WINDOWS, YOU KNOW, THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THE WINDOWS ARE BEYOND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DE DETERIORATION, THE ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW FOR WINDOWS TO BE REPLACED.
AND THEN THERE'S LANGUAGE ABOUT DO THEY NEED TO LOOK LIKE THE WINDOW THAT WAS THERE ORIGINALLY AND APPEARS SIGNIFICANCE.
SO A LOT OF OUR, OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE IS BASED ON CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES AND NOT, AND NOT NEWER WINDOWS OR NEWER PROPERTIES.
AND SO IN THIS REGARD, IF, IF YOU'RE ALLOWED TO REPLACE THE WINDOWS, IT NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE WOOD, EVEN IF IT'S NOT WOOD.
BUT THERE'S THAT, THERE'S CLEAR LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE ABOUT THAT.
AND, UM, AND NONETHELESS, WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF, UM, WINDOW DISCUSSIONS.
UM, SO, AND OFTEN WE HAVE TO RELY ON STAFF OR PETE TO GO OUT AND LOOK AT THE WINDOWS.
UM, SOME OF OUR STAFF AND PETE HAVE EXPERIENCE RESTORING WOOD WINDOWS AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS AND, BUT THAT, THAT'S PART OF THIS CONVERSATION AS WELL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS? IS THERE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, IS IT WORTH TO PUT A CONDITION THAT IT'S, THAT THE FRAME, THAT THE THICKER FRAME WOULD BE PARTIALLY OBSCURED TO MATT TO REPRESENT, TO RESEMBLE TO THE TYPICAL WINDOW INSTALLATION INSET? YES.
IS THERE A SECOND COSGROVE SECONDS? ANY ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? MOTION PASSES AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM D COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
AND I HAVE ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC SIGNED TO SPEAK, WHICH IS PAULA KINA.
GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR THIS.
IF, IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME OF THE
[01:55:01]
MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD.GOOD AFTERNOON, AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.
I AM NOT, UH, FROM THE HEIGHTS.
I AM AN A ACRES HOMES CITIZEN.
AS A MANNER OF INTRODUCTION, I AM NATIVE HOUSTONIAN, MS. PAULA A COA.
I AM THE CAREGIVER OF A RESIDENT OF THE ACRES HOMES COMMUNITY WHO HAS BEEN RESIDING AS SUCH SINCE 1950.
IN 2022, HIS HOME SUFFERED A FIRE AND HE HAD NO INSURANCE.
MY COMMENTS ARE REGARDING THE ISSUES THAT MR. PATRICK SILA MAIL AND I HAVE SUBMITTED PAPERWORK REGARDING THE REBUILDING OF HIS HOME AT THE STATE, CITY, AND COUNTY LEVELS TO NO AVAIL.
IT IS NOW GOING ON FOUR YEARS SINCE THE FIRE, AND OVER ONE YEAR SINCE A TREE FELL ON HIS HOME AFTER HURRICANE BERYL.
WE WOULD NOW RECOMMEND THAT THESE THREE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT WORK TOGETHER TO GIVE MR. LAEL AND I THE HELP THAT IS AVAILABLE TO US AS PRODUCTIVE HOUSTON CITIZENS.
I CONTINUALLY RECEIVE SUGGESTIONS FROM THE SAME DEPARTMENTS TO SUBMIT THE SAME PAPERWORK TO THE SAME ENTITIES OVER AND OVER WITH THE SAME RESULTS AND ANSWERS OF DISQUALIFICATION OF MR. LAME.
WHAT MORE CAN HE DO TO QUALIFY IF BEING RETIRED DISABLED AND A SENIOR CITIZEN IS NOT SUFFICIENT? COMMENT NUMBER TWO.
AS AS A RECENTLY APPROVED VENDOR FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON, I AM IN NEED OF A CONTRACT TO WORK IN MY FIELD OF EXPERTISE FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
WHO DO I SPEAK WITH REGARDING A CITY CONTRACT, WHICH WILL ALSO HELP WITH THE COST OF MR. LAMA'S HOME REPAIR AND THE WORK THAT I CAN OFFER DIFFERENT DISTRICTS, JURISDICTIONS AND COM COMMUNITIES OF THE CITY.
I GUESS KIM, I I KNOW PUBLIC, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT IS, IT'S A ONE WAY COMMUNICATION TO US, RIGHT? BUT I, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO DIRECT SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED TO YEAH, I, I THINK SOMEONE IN THE CITY, MY GUT IS, IS HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S ALREADY BEEN THERE NODDING YES.
UM, I'LL, I CAN TRY AND FIND A NAME.
WE CAN GET HER CONTACT INFO AND WE CAN TRY AND FIND A NAME IN W WITH THE AT LEAST HOUSING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAWYERS AND THEN GET SOMEBODY OVER THERE.
UM, WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S REPORT.
IS IT PUBLIC COMMENT? WE HAVE ONE MORE PUBLIC COMMENT CHAIR.
ROBERT, WHEN WILL THE GUIDELINES COME BEFORE
UH, VIRGINIA, THEY ARE, UH, STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS THAT WE ARE WORKING DILIGENTLY TO GET THEM DONE THIS YEAR.
ANYTHING I CAN DO TO MAKE 'EM GO FASTER? I'M YOUR GAL
ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC WANTS TO SPEAK? SAM, PLEASE.
I KNOW IT'S A NEW CREW HERE AND EVERYTHING, BUT, UH, YOUR COMMENT MR. BRODERICK, ABOUT THE, UH, UH, LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBOR, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.
AND IT'S, IT'S, THE NEIGHBORS IN THE HEIGHTS, IN MY EXPERIENCE, HAVE BEEN EAGER TO GIVE US LETTERS.
I MEAN, ONE PROJECT WE HAD IN NOR HILL, WE HAD, I THINK IT WAS 31 OR 37 NEIGHBORS WITHIN FOUR BLOCK RADIUS THAT WERE WITHIN FAVOR OF OUR PROJECT.
BUT WHEN WE SUBMITTED THOSE TO THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION, IT DIDN'T REALLY SEEM TO SWAY 'EM ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
BUT IF YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU WANT THE NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE TO GIVE US A LETTER OF APPROVAL OF OUR PROJECT, I'M HAPPY TO GO MEET WITH THOSE NEIGHBORS AND GET THAT APPROVAL.
ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO ITEM E SORT, PRESERVATION OFFICER REPORT.
YASMIN? HELLO, THIS IS YASMIN ARSLAN, INTERIM PRESERVATION OFFICER.
BETWEEN TRAINING DRAFTS AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON, THERE'S NO PRESERVATION OFFICER REPORT, BUT I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE PUBLIC AND THANK THEM FOR THEIR PATIENCE AS WE HAVE BEEN SHORT STAFFED.
SO WE MIGHT NOT HAVE, UH, BEEN RESPONDING AS FAST AS WE'D LIKE TO BE.
WE APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC'S, UM, FLEXIBILITY, UNDERSTANDING, AND PATIENCE.
[02:00:01]
OUR BEST.UM, WE ARE HANDLING PRESERVATION TRACKER THAT IS STILL RELATIVELY NEW, I WANNA SAY THREE MONTHS NOW.
WE ARE WORKING WITH IT, UM, TO FIX A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEING SUBMITTED BY STAFF AND BY, UH, THE PUBLIC.
UM, AND, AND WE, WE WILL ALSO TRY AND WORK ON NOR HEALTH DESIGN GUIDELINES AS FAST AS WE CAN.
UH, WE APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S PATIENCE AND FLEXIBILITY.
WE, WE THANK THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION FOR THEIR TIME AND VOLUNTEER AND THEIR SERVICE, AND WE WELCOME THE NEW, UM, COMMISSION AND IT'S NOT BAD 4 35.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S NOT BAD AT ALL.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A GOOD START IN THE SIX YEARS HERE.
I HAVE A LEGAL QUESTION FOR KIM, HOWEVER, UM, SO I DON'T HAVE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOUR, UH, COMMENTS FROM THE HEHC.
SO AT LEAST ON MY COPY, I THINK THAT WAS POLLED.
SO THERE USED TO, I DIDN'T REALLY COVER THIS IN OUR DISCUSSION EARLIER, BUT LET, LET ME JUST SAY THAT, UM, A LOT OF TIMES YOU COM COM AS COMMISSIONERS, YOU'LL HAVE COMMENTS OR YOU'LL HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU'LL WANT TO ASK HERE AT THE MEETING, RIGHT? OR I'LL SAY YOU NEED TO ASK IT AT THE MEETING IF I'M ASKED.
UM, IF WE KNOW IN ADVANCE WHAT YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT, LET STAFF KNOW AND THEN THEY CAN TELL YOU WHEN OR HOW IT CAN GET ON AN AGENDA.
UM, A LOT OF TIMES THEY WANNA DO SOME STAFF PREPARATION TIME.
AGAIN, THE IDEA IS THE AGENDA'S SUPPOSED TO TELL THE PUBLIC WHAT IS GONNA BE DISCUSSED.
AND IF ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU GUYS START TALKING ABOUT WINDOWS, THEN IT'S NOT ON THERE.
I, SORRY, WE BEAT WINDOWS TO DEATH, BUT, UM, UH, YEAH, THAT ONE DID TAKE A LOT TIME.
UM, CHAIR COMMENT, PARTICULARLY WHEN THINGS ARE, ARE NOT POSTED.
SO EVEN THINGS LIKE THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, IT'S COMMENTS.
IT'S, IT'S NOT A DEBATE OR DISCUSSION BECAUSE AGAIN, SOMEONE OUT IN THE PUBLIC MAY HAVE WANTED TO BE HERE TO HEAR IT.
SO, UM, IT, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S SOMETHING OF INTEREST THAT WE KNOW TO THE PUBLIC, NEED TO KEEP AN EYE ON THAT.
SO STAFF WILL WORK WITH YOU TO GET, TO GET INFORMATION OR QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA.
UH, I JUST WANTED FOR THE RECORD TO POINT OUT, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF CRUS, UM, ON SOME ITEMS ON THREE 20 AND THEN A COUPLE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
AND WE MIGHT NOT HAVE LOGISTICALLY, UH, GOT THAT ON THE RECORD, BUT WE, UM, THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE DID STEP OUT OF THE ROOM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND WE HAVE GOT AFFIDAVITS ON FILE, UH, TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME.
AND WITH THAT, WE WILL ADJOURN.
GOOD MEETING FOR YOUR FIRST ONE, Y'ALL.