[00:00:14]
IT IS NOW 2 39, UH, PM THURSDAY, MAY 21ST, 2026.
TODAY'S MEETING OF THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COM COMMISSION.
I AM COMMISSION CHAIR DAVID EK TO VERIFY WE HAVE A QUORUM.
I'LL CALL THE ROLE THE CHAIR IS PRESENT.
UH, COMMISSIONER JONES IS ABSENT TODAY.
UM, IS COMMISSIONER CARL SMITH.
COMMISSIONER COSGROVE PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER MARK SMITH PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER BROWNING PRESENT.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS PRESENT AND ALSO DE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT WILLIAMSON.
I'LL START WITH THE CHAIR'S REPORT.
UM, AND I WILL REVIEW THE, UM, THE SPEAKER RULES.
WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE LATE START.
UM, WE HAVE A VERY LARGE AGENDA TODAY AND, UM, INVARIABLY IT BECOMES A TECHNICAL ISSUE WITH THESE, UM, HAND HANDHELDS THAT WE USE.
SO, UM, WE HAVE THEM NOW AND WE WILL PROCEED.
UM, THIS MEETING CAN BE VIEWED ON HTV, ALTHOUGH VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION OPTIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE.
UM, THESE MEETINGS DO START, UM, A FEW MINUTES AFTER THE SCHEDULED TIME JUST TO ALLOW THE HTV BROADCAST TO GO LIVE.
UH, SPEAKERS, IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE SPEAKER FORMS AT THE, UH, AT THE FRONT DOOR AND TURN IT INTO THE STAFF.
UH, MEMBER NEAREST THE FRONT DOOR.
UH, THESE SPEAKER RULES ARE POSTED ON THE AGENDA AND ARE AT MY DISCRETION AT AT THIS MEETING.
APPLICANTS WILL OPEN AND SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES.
UM, UM, PLEASE RETURN TO YOUR SEAT AFTER YOU ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
UM, NOTE THAT YOU ALSO MAY, UH, BE ASKED OR RECOGNIZED BY MYSELF OR COMMISSION MEMBER.
UM, IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT A MEMBER HAS AFTER, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS SPOKEN, UH, PUBLIC, OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS MAY SPEAK, UH, ONE TIME UP TO TWO MINUTES, UM, WHEN I RECOGNIZE YOU TO SPEAK.
UM, ALSO, PLEASE NOTE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS AFTER STAFF'S INITIAL PRESENTATION, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, COMMISSION MEMBERS, PLEASE HOLD YOUR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC DELIBERATIONS HAVE OCCURRED.
AND, UM, UM, AND WE DO THAT JUST TO KEEP, KEEP THE MEETING ROLLING FORWARD, UH, STAYING ON TIME.
AND WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON.
UM, I DO NOT HAVE A MAYOR'S LIAISON REPORT, SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
THANK YOU, CHAIR HICK, AND GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
I'M ROBERT WILLIAMSON, ACTING SECRETARY OF THIS COMMISSION, AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR MY REPORT TODAY.
FIRST, THE NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE NOT BEING BROUGHT TO THIS COMMISSION THIS MONTH FOR REVIEW.
AS REPORTED LAST MONTH, STAFF IS STILL REVISING THE FINAL DRAFT, AND IT WOULD BE BROUGHT IN FOR REVIEW NEXT MONTH.
SECOND, I, I WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE CHAIR HAS REQUESTED THAT WE SCHEDULE AN HAHC WORKSHOP IN THE COMING WEEKS TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMISSION WITH THE GOAL OF IMPROVING THE OPERATION OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS WORK SESSION WILL BE THE FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE COMING WEEKS.
FINALLY, IT'S BEEN A BUSY SPRING SINCE OUR APRIL, 2026 MEETING, WE RECEIVED THREE REQUESTS FOR PRE-APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEWS AND 46 NEW COA APPLICATIONS.
THIS BRINGS OUR YEAR TO DATE PRE-APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEWS TO 24 AND YEAR TO DATE, COA SUBMITTED TO 163.
WE'VE ALSO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED 17 COAS DURING THE CYCLE, BRINGING OUR YEAR TO DATE TOTAL TO 48.
IN CLOSING, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL THE HOUSTON OFFICE OF PRESERVATION HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6, OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
UH, WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE APRIL 23RD, UH, 2026 HAHC MEETING MINUTES COMMISSION MEMBERS.
HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? ARE THERE ANY, UM, I HAVE A COUPLE CORRECTIONS, UM, MR. CHAIR.
[00:05:01]
UM, FIRST, THE, THE MINUTES DESCRIBE THE HARD CUTOFF CHANGE IS ALLOWING COMMISSIONERS TO ABSTAIN FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, WHICH READS AS A PERMISSION.UM, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THAT MEETING, UH, SHOWS THAT DEPUTY DIRECTOR WILLIAMSON ACTUALLY SAID THAT THE CHANGE SUPPORTS THE POLICY OF ONLY ALLOWING ABSTENTION FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
IT'S NOT A PERMISSION, AND THE MINUTES SHOULD REFLECT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID THAT DAY.
UM, MY SECOND CORRECTION WOULD BE THAT, UH, MY VOTE ON D MATTER D THREE, UH, WAS RECORDED AS OPPOSED ABSTAINED, UH, WHICH IS NOT HOW I VOTED.
AND SO THE RECORD WOULD NEED TO REFLECT THE VOTE THAT I ACTUALLY CAST.
UM, IF, UH, IF THIS IS GONNA REQUIRE ANY KIND OF WORDSMITHING, BECAUSE WE HAVE A HEAVY AGENDA TONIGHT, WHAT I MIGHT SUGGEST IS THAT WE TABLE THE APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 23RD MINUTES UNTIL THE JUNE MEETING, IF THAT'S NECESSARY, JUST TO SAVE TIME.
OTHERWISE, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU WANT TO HANDLE IT NOW, THAT'S UP TO YOU.
UM, WELL, I MEAN, PART OF, PART OF THIS MEETING THAT I'M PROPOSING THAT WE HAVE IS TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS, UM, LIKE THIS, FOR INSTANCE, THAT YOU'VE RAISED.
SO, UM, UM, IF WE WANT TO WAIT UNTIL NEXT MONTH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, IT'S, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT.
YEAH, SO, SO WE, WE CAN, WE CAN TABLE THAT AND I WON'T CALL A VOTE OR ACCEPT THE MINUTES.
I KNOW THEY SAID, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE DATE OF WHAT I'VE REQUESTED IS BEING DETERMINED YET, BUT, SO I'M NOT SURE THE DATE, BUT WE WILL BE REVIEWING A NUMBER OF ITEMS, UM, AND I BELIEVE THEY WILL INCLUDE THIS ITEM OF ABSTENTIONS.
SO WITH THAT, I WILL MOVE ON THEN TO ITEM A, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A LANDMARK DESIGNATION APPLICATION FOR THE FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK.
LOCATED AT, UH, 1221 MAIN STREET, HOUSTON, TEXAS 7 7 0 0 2.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON SAMANTHA DELEON.
I SUBMIT ITEM, UH, A FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT 10 21 MAIN STREET FOR THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK, THE 1961 FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK IS A CORPORATE MODERN SKYSCRAPER IN THE CENTER OF DOWNTOWN HOUSTON, TEXAS.
THE HISTORICALLY FUNCTIONAL RELATED COMPLEX INCLUDES A 32 STORY OFFICE, TOWER, HYEN, AND NON HISTORIC PARKING GARAGE CONNECTED BY AN ORIGINAL SUBTERRANEAN TUNNEL TO THE ORIGINAL DETACHED SEVEN STORY PARKING GARAGE.
THE OFFICE TOWER HYPHEN AND NON HISTORIC, UH, GARAGE ARE LOCATED AT 10 21 MAIN STREET, AND THE ORIGINAL GARAGE IS LOCATED AT 1101 FANON STREET.
WHEN FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND CITY NATIONAL BANK MERGED IN 1956, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A LARGER, MODERN COMPLEX WAS NEEDED TO HOUSE THE CORPORATION.
THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT INCLUDED THE TOWER, THE HYPHEN, A BANKING, A BANKING PAVILION, AND A MOTOR BANK, ALL DESIGNED BY SKIDMORE, OWINGS, AND MERRILL WITH HOUSTON ARCHITECTS, WILSON MORRIS, CA CRANE AND ANDERSON.
THE BANKING PAVILION AND MOTOR BANK WERE DEMOLISHED IN 1998, AND IN 1999, THE PARKING GARAGE CONSTRUCTED IN ITS PLACE CONNECTS THE TOWER THROUGH THE ABOVEGROUND HYPHEN AND THE, AND, AND AN UNDERGROUND LOBBY.
FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK IS SIGNIFICANT IN THE AREA OF ARCHITECTURE WITH THE YEAR BEING 1961.
THE COMPLEX IS SIGNIFICANT AS AN EARLY SKYSCRAPER BUILDING IN HOUSTON TO EMPLOY THE GEOMETRIC MASONRY STRUCTURAL GRID, AKA EXOSKELETON OR OR ARTICULATED FRAME PIONEERED BY BUNSHAFT WITH ENGINEER PAUL INGER.
THE RESULTING DESIGN WAS SO WIDELY EMPLOYED BY MO, BY MULTIPLE SOM OFFICES DURING THE 1960S THAT IT BECAME SOMEWHAT OF A TRADEMARK FOR THE FIRM.
THE EXTERIOR STRUCTURE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED INTERIOR COLUMNS CREATING MORE FLEXIBLE OPEN SPACE.
THE TOWER WAS CONSTRUCTED DURING A BRIEF TRANSITIONAL PERIOD IN SOMS CORPORATE MODERN ARCHITECTURE BETWEEN THE ME AND EARLY 1950S GLASS CURTAIN WALL SYSTEMS DEVELOPED BY BUNSHAFT FOR THE, UM, FOR THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY MEETS CRITERIA 1, 4, 5, AND SIX FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
MOST OF THIS REPORT WAS EXTRACTED FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NOMINATION FOR THE FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK BY RYAN, LLC, SENIOR CONSULTANTS, MIRANDA, UH, AMANDA COLEMAN, AND STEPH MCDOUGALL, CONSULTANT MELANIE CAT, AND ASSISTED BY DIRECTOR ANNA MAUD.
THE FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK IS NOMINATED TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER UNDER CRITERION C IN THE AREA OF ARCHITECTURAL ARCHITECTURE.
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE HOUSTON ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL, UH, THE PROTE, THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 10 21 MAIN STREET, HOUSTON, TEXAS, 7 7 0 0 2, KNOWN AS THE FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK.
CHAIRS AND MEMBER CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AMANDA COLEMAN FROM RYAN, IS HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
I'M ALSO AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
[00:10:02]
THANK YOU.AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DO HAVE THREE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
THEY ARE AMANDA COLEMAN AND BROOKS HOWE, WHICH ARE, ARE BOTH INDICATED AS THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS, AS MENTIONED, MELANIE CARDELL.
UM, WOULD AMANDA, UH, COLEMAN OR BROOKS HOWE LIKE TO START AMANDA COLEMAN? OKAY.
HELLO AND GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS AMANDA COLEMAN, AND I'M THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF OWNERSHIP FOR THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 10 21 MAIN STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK.
I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OWNERSHIP'S FULL SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION AND THE APPRECIATION FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM, WHICH HELPS OUR BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND DRIVES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
WHILE OWNERSHIP COULD NOT ATTEND TODAY, IN PERSON, MYSELF AND MY COLLEAGUE AT RYAN HISTORIC ADVISORS, UM, ARE HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT.
UM, MELANIE DEL, WHO WAS ONE OF MY CO-AUTHORS IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REPORT, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND LISTED IN THE REGISTER ON JANUARY 20TH, 2026, IS HERE TO ALSO SPEAK ON THE OWNER'S BEHALF.
PLEASE NOTE THIS REVIEW WAS ALSO DONE IN COORDINATION WITH THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND SUPPORTED BY HHC IN AUGUST OF 2025.
ADDITIONALLY, BROOKS W HOWELL, PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT AT GENSLER IS HERE TO ANSWER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE PROJECT.
AND AS ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE ONLY THE LOT WITH THE TOWER, UM, THE HYPHEN AND THE NON HISTORIC GARAGE, ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR THIS LANDMARK NOMINATION.
OKAY, SO WE'LL, WE'LL PROCEED NEXT WITH MELANIE ELL, FOLLOWED BY BROOKS HOWELL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS MELANIE ELL WITH RYAN HISTORIC ADVISORS.
AND I WANNA START BY THANKING THE COMMISSION FOR REVIEWING THE LANDMARK NOMINATION FOR THE FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK.
AS MY COLLEAGUE AMANDA SAID, I'M A CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NOMINATION FOR THIS BUILDING THAT WAS NOMINATED UNDER CRITERION C FOR ARCHITECTURE.
I ALSO HELP PREPARE THE LANDMARK APPLICATION THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS.
I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THE FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK'S HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE, AND SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN HOUSTON AS SKIDMORE, OWINGS, AND MERRILL'S FIRST BUILDING IN DOWNTOWN HOUSTON.
AND ONE OF THE FIRST WITH AN EXOSKELETON STRUCTURE.
THE FIRST CITY NATIONAL BANK IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF CORPORATE MODERN DESIGN.
ITS INNOVATIVE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM, VISIBLE ON THE EXTERIOR, MAKE IT, UM, IMPORTANT PART OF HOUSTON'S ARCHITECTURAL LEGACY.
IT HAS BEEN REWARDING TO HELP DOCUMENT AND SUPPORT THE PRESERVATION OF THIS HISTORIC BUILDING.
I APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION'S TIME AND CONSIDERATION TODAY.
I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BROOKS HOWELL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONER AND, AND CHAIRMAN.
I'M THE PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE FOR THIS PROJECT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANNA TELL YOU JUST A TINY BIT ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE BUILDING.
UH, THE BUILDING IS ROUGHLY 600,000 SQUARE FEET.
IT'S GONNA BE CONVERTED INTO 553 APARTMENTS, OF WHICH 460 ARE MARKET RATE RENTAL WITH NINE THREE ESSENTIALLY FUNCTIONING ON A, ON A VARIOUS SHORT, SHORTER TERM.
YOU CAN DO 'EM FOR MONTHLY OR MULTIPLE MONTHS, ET CETERA.
UM, THE PROJECT WILL SINGLE HANDEDLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN DOWNTOWN BY 5% GIVEN ON THE EXISTING UNITS.
UM, IT'S AN EXCELLENT CANDIDATE FOR CONVERSION.
THE DISTANCE FROM THE, BASED ON REALLY THE FLOOR PLATE ITSELF, THE DISTANCE FROM THE CORE TO THE GLASS IS ONLY 31 AND A HALF FEET, UH, WHICH ESSENTIALLY IN THE STRUCTURAL BASE WORKOUT VERY, VERY WELL FOR THE CONVERSION.
SO IT'S A VERY NICE CLEAN CONVERSION.
UM, ANYWAY, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION, OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE PROJECT THAT ARE NOT IN THE APPLICATION.
BUT YOU LATER YOU WILL BE BRINGING AN APPLICATION A C OF A FOR THE YES.
CHANGES THAT YOU HAVE, UH, JUST OUTLINED TO THE COMMISSION.
YES, AND WE'LL SEE THAT IN, IN DUE TIME.
AND, UM, I REMEMBER THIS BUILDING, AND OF COURSE THE, THE, THE, UH, THE BANKING LOBBY WAS ALSO VERY ICONIC.
IT WAS SORT OF A BIG GLASS BOX AND IT WAS MORE MM-HMM
UM, IT WAS MORE OPEN THAN IN ANY APPLE STORE I'VE EVER SEEN.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A VERY, YOU KNOW, EARLY YES, UH, DESIGN THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT MANY APPLE STORES REPLICATED OVER TIME, BUT IT, IT WAS A VERY SIGNATURE PIECE OF ARCHITECTURE IN DOWNTOWN HOUSTON FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
YES, THE, THE BUILDING'S IN REALLY AN EXCELLENT SORT OF PRESERVE CONDITION IN TERMS OF THE, THE EXISTING LOBBY AND THE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAINTAINING ALL THE SIGHT LINES IN TERMS OF THE, THE ORIGINAL, UH, GREEN MARBLE AND THE CORE, ET CETERA.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NOT HEARING THAT I WOULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, I GUESS COMMISSION MEMBERS, IS THERE, UM, ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS ITEM? AND IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? UH, FOR THIS ITEM, GARCIA? A MOTION TO ACCEPT.
[00:15:03]
I HAD A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT, IF THAT'S OKAY.WHICH APPLICANT? UM, THE, THE FINAL, I APOLOGIZE, SIR, I FORGET YOUR NAME.
UM, SO FOR THE SHORT TERM RENTALS, ARE THOSE TERMS GOING TO BE ANY LESS THAN 30 DAYS? ESSENTIALLY IT'S A HOTEL, IT'LL FUNCTION AS A HOTEL.
YOU'LL BE, YOU CAN GO THERE FOR ONE NIGHT.
IF YOU'RE COMING TO A CONVENTION, YOU CAN STAY THERE FOR ONE NIGHT.
UM, THE PARTICULAR BRAND IS, IS CALLED ROOST.
AND THEY TYPICALLY FUNCTION MORE IN A WEEKLY, MONTHLY.
UM, THEY EXPECT TO SEE PEOPLE THAT, YOU'LL SEE QUITE A FEW FAMILIES COMING TO THE MEDICAL CENTER FOR TREATMENT, STAYING THERE.
UM, YOU'LL HAVE, YOU KNOW, ATTORNEYS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS.
I SUSPECT THAT WE AT GUNSLER, WE'RE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
WE WILL PUT A FAIR NUMBER OF OUR FOLKS THERE, BUT IT'S A HOTEL.
THERE IS A, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A STAFF, THEY HAVE HOUSE CLEANING SERVICES, ET CETERA.
SO IT'S REALLY, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S 93 OF THE, OF THE 553 UNITS BASICALLY.
OKAY, SO IT'S NOT A-V-R-B-O TYPE THING? NO.
YOU GO TO THE WEBSITE, YOU CAN LOOK IT UP AS A ROOST.
IT'S MORE IN LINE WITH A, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, A MARRIOTT THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
LOOKING FORWARD TO THE APPLICATION.
IS THERE A SECOND BILL? SECOND, I THINK, I THINK I HEARD COSTCO FIRST.
UM, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM B, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS.
UM, ONE OR MORE OF THESE ITEMS MAY BE TAKEN IN ONE MOTION HAS A CONSENT AGENDA, AND WE WERE, WE WILL NOW REVIEW THE PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA, UM, MR. CHAIR POINT, POINT OF ORDER, UM, FOR THIS AND ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT COME, IF, IS IT OKAY IF I ASK THAT STAFF FLAG FOR IN ADVANCE IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO ANY OF THESE APPLICATIONS BETWEEN THE TIME THEY WERE PUBLICLY POSTED AND TODAY, JUST SO THAT THE COMMISSIONERS KNOW THAT GOING IN? IS THAT APPROPRIATE? I DON'T BELIEVE ANY CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE ON ANY APPLICATIONS SINCE THEY WERE POSTED AS, AS WAS DISCUSSED IN OUR LAST MEETING.
BUT I, I CAN ASK, UH, STAFF TO MY, IF I MAY, MY CONCERN STEMS FROM AN EMAIL THAT THE COMMISSIONERS RECEIVED EARLIER THIS WEEK STATING THAT THERE MIGHT BE CHANGES.
AND SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW IN ADVANCE OF EACH APPLICATION HAVE CHANGES BEEN MADE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION TO TERRANCE? YES, SIR.
UH, STAFF MEMBER TERRANCE JACKSON HERE, UM, UH, SO I, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH STAFF AND THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WE ARE, THAT I AM AWARE OF AT THIS POINT IS ITEM B 14, UH, ON THE DRAFT THAT SAID APPROVAL AND IT IS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
AND THEN, UH, ITEM B 27 7 1 8 MORLEY STREET WAS DEFERRED BY APPLICANT TERRANCE, THE QUESTION ON 14? YES SIR.
YOUR RECOMMENDATION CHANGE, BUT DID ANYTHING IN THE APPLICATION CHANGE? NO, SIR.
SO THE ANSWER IS NO, BUT ONE OTHER PROJECT WAS DEFERRED BY THE APPLICANT? YES, SIR.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE? YES.
SO NO CHANGES TO THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW? RIGHT.
THERE'S NO CHANGES TO INFORMATION.
I MEAN, I MEAN, ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF MAYBE A FEW MORE, UM, LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UH, BUT NOTHING, NO, NO DESIGN CHANGES.
UM, NO CHANGES TO THE, TO THE ACTUAL PROJECT.
YASMEEN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OR I CAN BE VERY DETAIL ORIENTED IF YOU WANT ME.
SO I'M ASKING IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO BE I'M BL I'M, UH, CURSED WITH A GOOD MEMORY.
SO WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO IN DETAILS LIKE ABOUT LITTLE THINGS? I'M JUST CURIOUS WHETHER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WHETHER, UM, THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THERE WERE CHANGES IN THE DESIGNS PUSHED FORTH BY THE APPLICANTS? SO THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE DESIGN.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S AN APPLICATION, OUR LINKEDIN THAT HAS THE ADDITION AS A SEPARATE APPLICATION AND THE GARAGE AS A SEPARATE APPLICATION.
ALL WE DID WAS ADD A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE ADDITION, THE, THE FLOOR PLAN WITH THE ADDITION AND THE GARAGE ON THE SAME ONE.
SO, AND THAT WAS SUBMITTED UNDER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR APPLICANT'S, UM, MATERIAL, UM, AND MAYBE A
[00:20:01]
BLA.BUT, UM, EVERYTHING WAS, UM, AL ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME.
SO TERRANCE, CAN YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR RECOMMENDED LIST FOR CONSENT? UH, YES, I MOST DEFINITELY CAN.
UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE JUST LIKE LAST MONTH, UH, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LONG AGENDA, UM, I AM GOING TO SKIP THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OR LANDMARK AND JUST READ THE ADDRESS APPLICATION, UH, TYPE AND THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
I MEAN, I KNEW IT WAS GONNA BE A LONG AGENDA, SO, UH, I PUT ON MY BEST THREADS TODAY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC.
I'M STAFF MEMBER TERRANCE JACKSON.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FOR ACTION PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN ONE MOTION ITEMS B 1 1 512 ARLINGTON STREET ALTERATION EDITION.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM B 2 1 15 12 ARLINGTON NEW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM B 3 18 0 6 STATE STREET ALTERATION EDITION.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM 18 ONE 1-810-COURTLAND STREET ALTERATION EDITION.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL OR ITEM B FIVE 1-810-COURTLAND STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE OR A CARPORT.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM B 6 6 1 1 OMAR STREET, ALTERATION EDITION.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM B 7 8 0 5 COURTLAND ALTERATION EDITION.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM B 8 8 0 5 COURTLAND, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE OR A CARPORT.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL B 9 10 11 FUGATE ALTERATION EDITION.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 1 1 1 8 2 LANE STREET ALTERATION EDITION.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL B 11 2 0 2 EAST 31ST STREET.
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THIS IS DEFERRED BY STAFF.
ITEM B12 2 0 2 EAST 31ST AND A HALF STREET.
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE OR A CARPORT.
THIS ITEM IS ALSO DEFERRED BY STAFF.
ITEM B 13 4 6 0 1 OAK RIDGE STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION GARAGE OR A CARPORT.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL 4 6 0 1 OAK, I'M SORRY, ITEM B 14 4 6 0 1 OAK RIDGE STREET ALTERATION EDITION FOUNDATION SITING A TRIM DOORS, WINDOWS, PORCH OR BALCONY, CHIMNEY AND ROOF OR OTHER, UH, RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
ITEM B 15 1 1 3 1 DUNBAR STREET ALTERATION EDITION FOUNDATION SITING A TRIM, DOORS, WINDOWS, AND ROOF.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM B 16 3 6 0 1.
WHITE OAK ALTERA ALTERATION OF SIDING AND TRIM, UH, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
ITEM B 17 1 0 1 2 KEY STREET ALTERATION EDITION.
RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL ITEM B 18 504 WEST MAIN STREET, ALTERATION EDITION.
RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL ITEM B 19 504 WEST MAIN STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE OR A CARPORT.
RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL B 27 7 1 8 MORLEY, ALTERATION OF A ROOF OR OTHER DEFERRED BY APPLICANT B 21 15 15 RUTLAND STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL ITEM B 22 12 31 ARLINGTON ALTERATION EDITION.
RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.
ITEM B 23 2 2 2 WESTMORELAND ALTERATION, ADDITION FOUNDATION, SIDING OR TRIM DOORS, WINDOWS AND ROOF, UH, DEFERRED BY APPLICANT B 24 1 1 27 LAG GREEN STREET, ALTERATION OF A PORTRAIT, BALCONY, SIDING OR TRIM AND WINDOWS.
RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL B 25 5 6 1 3 AND A HALF ALAMEDA ROAD, LANDMARK BRASWELL BUILDING.
RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, 8 1 5 ARLINGTON STREET, ALTERATION EDITION.
RECOMMENDATION, APPROVAL B 27 7 0 9 MARSHALL ALTERATION OF WINDOWS.
[00:25:01]
APPROVAL B 28 10 38 WEST TEMPLE STREET, DEMOLITION OF A GARAGE OR CARPORT.RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL AND B 29, 10 38 WEST TEMPLE STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE OR CARPORT.
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THESE PROCEEDING ITEMS I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS? SO TERRANCE, I HAVE A QUESTION.
SO JUST ON THE, UM, THE ITEM 4 1 1 3, 1 DUNBAR THAT WAS ON THE AGENDA PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ITEM NUMBER 16, IS THAT, HAS THAT BEEN PULLED FROM THE, UH, FROM THE LIST? UH, SO, UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE WRONG AGENDA WAS PRINTED AND THAT THERE WAS, THERE WERE ONLY 29 ITEMS SO THAT, UH, ITEM 16 WAS A TYPO.
SO I, ITEM 16, 1 1 3, 1 DUNBAR STREET SHOULD BE IGNORED.
THE CORRECT ITEM NUMBER FOR 1 1 3 1 DUNBAR IS 15 AND PREVIOUSLY IT SAID, UH, IT WAS ITEM 16 ON THE, UH, SUBMITTED DRAFTS.
SO I JUST WANNA GO BACK AND SEE WHERE MY NUMBERS, UM, SO I, I HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL NUMBER.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO, JUST TO, TO DETERMINE WHICH, WHICH NUMBER.
HI, THIS IS STAFF PERSON SAMANTHA DELEON.
SO THE WRONG VERSION OF THE AGENDA WAS PRINTED ON ACCIDENT.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR AGENDA AT THIS MOMENT, ITEM NUMBER.
SO ITEM 13 IS STILL, UH, 46 0 1 OAK RIDGE AND THAT'S THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, I BELIEVE ON YOUR AGENDA.
IT MAY SHOW THAT IT'S A DEMOLITION THAT WAS, UH, REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA BECAUSE WE, IT WAS EXEMPT FROM, FROM US.
SO THE FORMER 13 HAS BEEN REMOVED AND WHAT WAS 14 BECAME 13.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE AGENDA SUMMARY THAT IS ON YOUR, ON IN FRONT OF YOU, THOSE ARE ACCURATE.
IF YOU WANT TO USE THAT INSTEAD OF THAT FOR THIS, THAT CHANGED, I THINK I'M OKAY.
SO I I UNDERSTAND THE ONE ON MY LIST THAT I'M GOING TO PULL OUT, THAT I'M GONNA PULL OUT THE DEMOLITION, RIGHT? CORRECT.
NOW I KNOW THAT THIS IS A LONG LIST OF CONSENT ITEMS. UM, AT THE SAME TIME THERE HAD BEEN A NUMBER, UH, I'VE RECEIVED A WRITTEN LIST FROM COMMISSIONER DAVIS AND SO I JUST WANNA REVIEW THOSE NUMBERS.
SO COMMISSIONER DAVIS, YOU HAVE REQUESTED THAT WE PULL, UM, FROM THE CONSENT, UM, ITEMS ONE AND TWO, WHICH ARE REFERRING TO 1512 ARLINGTON STREET, YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE AT 1810 COURTLAND STREET, YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL ITEM SIX AT SIX 11 OMAR STREET, ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT, WHICH REFER TO 8 0 5 CORTLAND STREET, ITEM 10, WHICH IS 1 1 1 8 2 LANE STREET AND YOU'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM 13, WELL I THINK THIS WOULD BE ITEM 13.
THE ADDRESS IS 4 0 4 6 0 1 OAK RIDGE STREET, WHICH IS NOW ITEM 13 AND 14.
SO THAT WOULD BE, THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY 14 AND 15.
SO BECAUSE THERE WERE THREE AND NOW THERE ARE THREE ITEMS FOR THAT.
SO, SO WE'RE GONNA PULL 14 AND 15, SORRY, 13 AND 14 CORRECT ON THE CURRENT LIST.
AND WE'LL PULL ITEM 15 AT 1 1 3, 1 DUNBAR STREET.
AND THE FINAL ITEM IS ITEM 21 AT 7 7 1 8.
NOW COMMISSION MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER PROJECTS THAT A COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO RE TO, TO PULL FROM THE CONSENT COMMISSIONER BLOWBACK? YES, MR. CHAIR.
UM, B THREE B NINE AND B 23 ITEM ITEM B 20 IS DEFERRED BY THE APPLICANT.
[00:30:03]
ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO PULL? I WOULD LIKE TO PULL B 24 AND B 24 IS NOW 1 1 2 7 LEE GREEN STREET? CORRECT.NOW AT THIS TIME I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, I DO HAVE A FEW SPEAKERS SIGNED UP, UM, FOR SOME OF THESE ITEMS AND TWO OTHER PROJECTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PULLED FOR CONSIDERATION, BUT I DO HAVE A SPEAKER SIGNED UP FOR ITEM 11 AND 12.
SO I'M GOING TO, I'M GONNA PULL ITEMS 11 AND 12 AND I HAVE A SPEAKER SIGNED UP FOR ITEM 18, WHICH IS A REFERENCE TO 1 0 1 2 KEY STREET.
AND I JUST WANT TO ASK THE, UH, THE PERSON WHO REQUESTED THIS, WHICH IS BRIAN DAVIS, UM, IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS ITEM, THEN WE DON'T NEED TO PULL THIS, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE DISCUSSED, WE CAN DISCUSS IT SO I'M NOT HEARING.
SO WE WILL LEAVE THAT ON CONSENT.
I'M SORRY? UM, B 17, I BELIEVE THAT'S ONE OF THE ONES THAT I PULLED.
SO TERRANCE, I'LL NEED YOUR HELP TO GO BACK THROUGH THIS LIST, WHAT'S LEFT OF IT.
I THINK I'VE MISSED ONE OR TWO OF THEM, BUT, UM, I HAVE B ONE B.
THANK YOU CHARLES, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WELL REALLY I JUST WANNA REVIEW WHAT REMAINING ON CONSENT.
OH, MAKE IT, MAKE IT A SHORTER LIST.
UH, WE WILL HAVE, OKAY, I THINK CHARLES GOT THE SAME THING, SO I'M STARTING.
YEAH, SO WE GOT NUMBER 16 B 18 1, 1 SECOND ON B, I'M SORRY.
I HAVE, WHICH IS 36 0 1 WHITE OAK.
AND THEN 5 1 4 WEST MAIN AT B 1818 B 19, B 22, B 23, B 25, B 26, B 27, B 28, AND B 29.
I THINK IT'S JUST BEING DEFERRED AND WE WERE AGREEING THAT IT'S DEFERRED.
SO I'LL READ OUT THE, THE REMAINING CONSENT AGENDA STARTING WITH ITEM 16 36 0 1 WHITE OAK DRIVE.
ITEM 18 5 14 WEST MAIN STREET ALTERATION EDITION, FOLLOWED BY ITEM 19 5 14 WEST MAIN STREET, NEW CONSTRUCTION GARAGE, FOLLOWED BY ITEM 22, 12 31 ARLINGTON STREET, FOLLOWED BY ITEM 23, I'M SORRY, 2 2 2 WESTMORELAND STREET FOLLOWED BY ITEM 25, 56, 13 AND A HALF ALAMEDA ROAD ITEM 26 8 1 5 ARLINGTON STREET, 27 7 0 9 MARSHALL STREET, 28 10 38 WEST TEMPLE STREET.
AND ITEM 29 13 38 WEST TEMPLE STREET.
AND, UH, STAFF WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE, UH, FOR ITEM B 22, ARE YOU PULLING 1231 ARLINGTON OR 1515 REDLAND? YES, WE'RE RIGHT.
[00:35:01]
IT WAS 1231 AT ARLINGTON STREET AS A CONSENT.SO 1515 RUTLAND STREET WILL BE DISCUSSED.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REVISED CONSENT AGENDA? SO MOVED, BROUGHT BACK MOTIONS.
IS THERE A SECOND? COSGROVE SECOND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES AND WE'LL NOW MOVE ON FOR THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
I WILL BE HERE FOR SOME TIME, SO ENJOY.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR EK AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
TODAY I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AGENDA ITEM B ONE AT 1512 ARLINGTON STREET.
THE PROPERTY IS A 1,235 SQUARE FOOT.
ONE STORY CONTRIBUTING CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW BUILT CIRCA 1915, LOCATED IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT ON A 6,600 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING, UM, AN ALTERATION ADDITION, WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING, RESTORING THE ORIGINAL L-SHAPED FRONT PORCH BY REMOVING NON-ORIGINAL ENCLOSURES, RELOCATING WINDOWS AND REINSTALLING APPROPRIATE WOOD DRILLING, UM, AND BRICK COLUMN BASES.
REMOVING NON-ORIGINAL HARDY SIDING AT THE PORCH BASE AND REPLACING IT WITH, UH, COMPATIBLE MATERIAL INCLUDING ONE 17 WOOD SIDING, REMOVING THE EXISTING REAR WOOD DECK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STORY.
TWO, UH, TWO STORY, UH, REAR ADDITION WITH THE SECOND FLOOR ENCROACHING ON 25% OVER THE, UM, THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, ADDING A NEW DETACHED.
WHAT DO, CAN I COMBINE BOTH BECAUSE I WOULD, I WOULD ASK YOU THAT YOU, YOU COMBINE, WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT HAVE, UM, THE SAME ADDRESS.
SO FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, LET'S, LET'S REVIEW, LET'S, LET'S BOTH, BOTH ITEMS, UH, ONE AND TWO IN THIS CASE.
UM, ADDING A TWO STORY GARAGE AND GARAGE APARTMENT AT THE REAR OF THE LOT WITH DIRECT ALLEY ACCESS, UH, 5 28 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT AND A TOTAL HEIGHT OF 25 FEET AND SIX INCHES FOR THE GARAGE.
ALL WINDOWS WILL BE INSET AND RECESSED.
UM, AND BOTH APPLICATIONS MEET HOUSTON, UH, HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR ITEM B ONE AND B TWO AND THE AGENT IS HERE ALSO TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM? CURRENTLY? I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR THIS ITEM.
UH, SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
COMMISSION MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, UM, FOR YOU.
UM, THE, IF I'M LOOKING AT THE PLANS CORRECTLY, THERE IS A SIDE PORCH ON THE FIRST FLOOR, WHICH IS COVERED BY THE PRIMARY BEDROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
AND I KNOW IN THE PAST THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED THAT THAT HAD TO BE CONSIDERED THEN PART OF THE FAR, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, BUT IF, IF THE, IF THE PORCH IS CONSIDERED CONSISTENT WITH PROPORTIONS OF WHAT A HISTORIC PORCH IS, THEN THAT IS ALLOWED.
IF IT'S A LOT BIGGER, THEN WE ADD THAT TO, WE HAVE IT, UH, TO THE FAR.
THAT'S BEEN HOW WE'VE BEEN DOING IT.
UM, AND OKAY, IT'S 165 SQUARE FEET.
SO WHAT DO YOU HAVE LIKE A, IS THERE LIKE A RULE OF THUMB? WELL, I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER CAVEAT.
UH, ESME, CAN YOU, THE OTHER WAY THIS IS ALSO LOOKED AT IS THAT IF THE PORCH IS ADDED TO THE FAR, IS IT STILL WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS OF THE FAR WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK OF? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? YOU'VE DONE THE CALCULATION? YEAH, IF I MAY, UM, SO EXCUSE ME, IF YOU COULD ANNOUNCE YOUR NAME YES.
HI, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I'M A THE AGENT, UM, REPRESENTING OUR, OUR CLIENTS OF THIS PROJECT.
UM, I BELIEVE THIS IS KIND OF A STANDARD SIDE PORCH.
UH, NORMALLY THEY'RE EIGHT FEET DEEP TO NINE, NINE FEET DEEP.
AND THIS IS LITERALLY FALLS ON, ON WHAT'S NORMALLY ON ALL THE HEIGHTS.
AND THEY ALWAYS HAVE LIKE A BACK PORCH OR
[00:40:01]
SIDE PORCH.THIS IS NOT OUT OF OUR STANDARD AND IT DOESN'T FALL OUT OF THE GUIDELINES.
I THINK THE QUESTION WAS ALSO ABOUT THE FAR, UM, ARE YOU, ARE YOU AT THE FAR CURRENTLY? YES.
UH, I BELIEVE WE'RE BELOW THE FAR, BUT I WOULD NEED TO DO THE CALCULATION TO SEE IF WE ADD THAT, UM, LIKE HOW, WHERE WE WE'RE, WHERE WE BE AT.
MY REMAINING AMOUNT IS 112 SQUARE FEET.
ACTUALLY, MAY I ASK A QUESTION PLEASE? COMMISSIONER DAVIS.
OKAY, SO THE HOUSE AND THE ADDITION ARE 27 92 SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN THE GARAGES ARE BASED UPON, THE PLANS ARE NOT 528 SQUARE FEET.
THE GARAGE ITSELF IS 5 34 AND THE APARTMENT ABOVE IT IS 5 59 97 BECAUSE THERE'S A BUMP OUT ON IT.
AND SO IF YOU ADD THE OVERAGES ON THAT, YOUR TOTAL FAR IS 29 95 0.7.
UM, JUST WANT TO HAVE THE, THE RECORD CORRECTED.
NOT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS THE A PROBLEM, I JUST WANT TO CORRECT.
MAYBE WE CAN HAVE STAFF LOOK AT THIS, UH, ITEM.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWERING THE QUESTION.
AGAIN, STAFF CONSIDERED THIS, UM, WITHIN THE PROPORTIONS OF WHAT HISTORIC PORCHES ARE AND THAT IS WHY THEY DIDN'T LOOK INTO INCLUDING IT IN THE FAR.
BUT I THINK THE QUESTION WAS RAISED WAS THE CALCULATIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
I, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT, WHAT'S, WHAT WAS PROVIDED IS, IS HERE.
HONESTLY, I'VE WORKED ON MANY APPLICATIONS, SO I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
UM, I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, PLEASE.
SO, UM, IN THE REPORT YOU HAVE THE SANBORN MAP, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A DATE ON THERE.
AND, UM, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE I PULLED THE SAND BOARD MAPS FOR 25, 50 AND 61 AND THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE SAME MAP.
SO IS DO YOU HAVE AN EARLIER THAN 20, 25 MAP THAT YOU COULD HAVE USED? YEAH, WE, WE DO HAVE IT AND I, I DON'T HAVE THE DATE HERE, BUT I PULLED IT FROM RZ DRIVE FROM THIS, UM, COMMISSIONER, UH, BERNIE.
SOMETIMES YOU HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IF YOU LOOK AT IT.
CAN YOU REMEMBER THE DATE? 'CAUSE I LIKE, I DON'T, BUT WE HAVE FROM 1909, WE HAVE 1917 NOT FOR EVERY HISTORIC DISTRICT MM-HMM
BUT, UM, WE HAVE IT FOR A FEW, IT'S PROBABLY 1924.
THE ADDITION, UM, NO SANBORN MAPS GET UPDATED AND UPDATED AND THEY REPRESENT DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS.
I JUST, UM, IT IS HARD TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY, BUT BECAUSE IT'S IN COLOR, UM, IT COULD BE EARLIER.
IT'S HARD TO JUST LOOK AT IT AND SAY, I, MR. DAVIS, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE INFORMATION IN THE SANBORN THAT DIFFERS FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE SANBORN THAT YOU LOOKED AT ON THIS BEGINNING? SO THE, THE L SHAPE, IF THE SANBORN MAP IN NINETEEN TEN, TWENTY FIVE IS CORRECT, IS NOT AS PRONOUNCED AS WHAT THEY HAVE HERE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS A PROBLEM, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO KNOW, PLEASE PUT THE DATES AND I USUALLY DO, BUT WE HAD A HEAVY AGENDA, SO I APOLOGIZE.
AND, UM, STAFF MEMBER, UM, DELEON JUST TOLD ME THAT SHE LOOKED IT UP IN THE Z DRIVE AND THERE WERE 2 19 15 AND 1917.
UM, AND IF YOU COULD ALSO PUT THE PIC THE DATE OF THE INVENTORY PHOTOS ON THE REPORTS AS WELL, THAT COULD BE HELPFUL AS WELL.
JUST DO WE HAVE THAT A NOTE? AND I DON'T, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO TELL ME WHAT DATE IT WAS.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT GENERALLY IF WE COULD HAVE THE DATES FOR SANBORN MAPS, FOR THE DATES, FOR THE INVENTORY PHOTOS.
SO AGAIN, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION THOUGH ABOUT THE FAR BECAUSE I, I STILL TRY TO, UM,
[00:45:01]
COMMISSIONER DAVIS, YOU'VE PUT TOGETHER A DIFFERENT SET OF NUMBERS, UM, THAN WHAT'S IN THE APPLICATION.I BELIEVE I JUST CALCULATED IT DIFFERENTLY.
THEY DIDN'T ADD IT, THEY DIDN'T DO A SUMMARY OF IT.
SO THEY, UH, I GUESS THERE WAS AN ASSUMPTION IT WAS 528 SQUARE FEET, BUT IT DOESN'T CALCULATE TO THAT.
AND THE QUESTION ABOUT THE PORCH THAT YOU RAISE IS THAT, UM, PORCHES, UM, YOU KNOW, CAN BE EXEMPT.
THEY ARE, UM, THE DEFINITION OF PORCHES ARE DEFINED AS WHAT IS TYPICAL ON THE PROPORTION AND DEPTH OF PORCHES AND THAT THE DEFINITION OF A PORCH SEEMS TO BE SATISFIED BY THE APPLICATION THAT WE, THAT AS WE DID SEE WHERE SOMETIMES WE SEE VERY LARGE, UM, OPEN SPACES, UM, WHICH DO NOT RESEMBLE PORCHES OR WITHIN THE STORE CONTEXT.
AND SO, UM, IT IS WITHIN DISCRETION OF THIS BODY NOT TO ACCOUNT THAT SPACE TOWARD THE FAR I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE FAR IS STILL, AS FAR AS WHAT THE BUILDING MASS OR THE AIR CONDITIONED SPACE IS STILL WITHIN THE FAR AS YOU, AS YOU CALCULATE THAT FROM STAFF'S POSITION, STAFF BELIEVES IT MEETS FAR AND LOCK COVERAGE? YES.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE FOR OF STAFF ON THIS APPLICATION FOR ITEMS ONE AND OR TWO? IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEMS ONE AND TWO? MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF APPROVAL? OKAY, I'LL SECOND.
AND ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
AND THAT WAS FOR ITEMS ONE AND TWO FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? I'M SORRY, WAS THAT BROBECK AND DEL? THAT IS CORRECT.
WE ARE NOW MOVING ON TO ITEM 3 18 0 6 STATE STREET.
UM, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR HICK MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS STAFF MEMBER YASMIN ARSLAN, I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1806 STATE STREET, UM, IN THE OLD SIX WARD HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE SITE CONTAINS A HISTORIC, UM, 1096 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE SITUATED ON A, UM, 404,300 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT.
THE STRUCTURE IS A CONTRIBUTING RESIDENCE, UH, CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1890 AND IS, UM, IT'S LOCATED IN THE OLD SIX WARD.
THE APPLICANT IS, UM, PROPOSING AN ALTERATION ADDITION, WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF A REAR ADDITION ON BOTH THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR TO INCREASE OVERALL LIVING SPACE, REMOVAL OF, UM, NONE ORIGINAL STRUCTURES, INCLUDING THE EXISTING, UM, GARAGE MODIFICATIONS OF THE HOME'S TOTAL LIVING AREA BY ADDING FIRST FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE, UM, AND THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING 10 OVER 12 GABLE ROOF WITH A SIX OVER 12 HIP ROOF IMPROVEMENTS, UH, TO, UH, REMOVAL OF EXISTING VINYL SIDING TO EXPLORE, EXPOSE AND REPAIR THE ORIGINAL WOOD SIDING USING SALVAGE MATERIAL FROM THE REAR INSTALLATION OF SMOOTH, UM, LAP, UH, FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING ON THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THIS APPLICATION RECEIVED SEVEN LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE PUBLIC AND A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM OLD SIX WARD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
HISTORIC CONSERVATION COMMITTEE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
AT THIS TIME I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS, WHICH IS THE APPLICANT, SAM NUAS, UH, SAM NUAS CREOLE DESIGN.
YOU SHOULD HAVE, UH, TWO MORE PEOPLE, UH, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE AS WELL.
I I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE, BUT I WILL CALL FOR INITIAL SPEAKERS WHEN AFTER YOU CONCLUDED.
I, Y'ALL HAVE, I'M, I'M HERE IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
IT WAS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
WE'LL LET YOU KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
UM, IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AND PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS SANEL PARRA AND, UH, TOGETHER WITH MY WIFE CHARRO, WHICH IS BACK HERE, UH, WE'RE THE OWNERS OF 1806 STATE STREET, LOCATED IN OLD SIX WARD.
UH, WE'RE HERE TO PRESENT A PROJECT THAT IS VERY CLOSE TO OUR HEARTS.
THE RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION OF THE ORIGINAL HOME OF, UM, HAS BEEN THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED IN THE ADDITION OF THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
[00:50:01]
BEFORE, UH, COMING TO THE COMMISSION, WE TOOK THE TIME TO MEET WITH OUR NEIGHBORS.WE TALKED WITH PEOPLE FROM STATE STREET AND OTHER STREETS, UM, AND WE HAVE RECEIVED THEIR SUPPORT.
IN ADDITION, WE MET WITH THE COMMITTEE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY ALSO, UM, UH, GAVE US THEIR SUPPORT.
SO, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR, UH, REQUEST TODAY THAT YOU, YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR VOTE, UM, SO THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD WITH, WITH OUR PROJECT.
AND, AND WOULD YOUR WIFE ALSO LIKE TO SPEAK? IT IS, IT IS AN, IT'S AN OPTION.
OKAY,
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF FOR THIS APPLICATION? I, I, I DON'T, IT WAS FULL BY A COMMISSION MEMBER, BUT I DON'T RECALL WHICH ONE IT WAS.
I DIDN'T HAVE A SPECIFIC ISSUE.
I JUST WANT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT IT.
UM, IT IS TRUE THAT MANY PROJECTS HAD PASSED ON THE CONSENT WHEN WE FIRST MEET, UM, OUR VERY NICE PROJECTS AND WE NEVER REVIEW THEM BECAUSE THEY GET, THEY GET APPROVED.
SO, UM, BUT WITH THAT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STATUS'S RECOMMENDATION? PROCEED THE MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
I'LL GIVE HILL THE SECOND ON THIS ONE.
WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE IF WE CAN PRESENT THEM TOGETHER FOR 1810.
COURTLAND STREET CHAIR EK AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
UM, TODAY I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AGENDA ITEM B FOUR AT 1810 CORTLAND STREET, HOUSTON HEIGHTS, UM, EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT, THE PROPERTY INCLUDES A 1,782, UM, SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY WOOD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A A ONE STORY DETACHED GARAGE SITUATED ON A 11,220, UM, INTERIOR LOT.
IT IS A CONTRIBUTING NATIONAL FOLK PYRAMIDAL, UM, CRAFTSMAN STYLE RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1915.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN ALTERATION EDITION OF A, UM, 1,482 SQUARE FOOT, UM, FIRST FLOOR EDITION AT THE REAR OF THE EXISTING CONTRIBUTING HOUSE ALONG WITH THE, WITH A 1,138 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR ADDITION CONSTRUCTED ABOVE THE, UH, NEW FIRST FLOOR FOOTPRINT.
THE ADDITION WILL HAVE A RIDGE HEIGHT OF 29 FEET WITH A FIVE OVER 12 ROOF PITCH.
THE DESIGN, UM, MAINTAINS ALL ORIGINAL CORNERS OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND INCLUDES A SITE COVERED PATIO AT THE RIGHT, UM, AT THE REAR RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UM, PAIRED WITH A ONE STORY CONDITIONED LIVING SPACE, COMBINING THEM BOTH.
UM, AS FOR THE GARAGE, A 462 SQUARE FOOT, TWO STORY DETACHED GARAGE WITH A GARAGE APARTMENT IS PROPOSED ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LOT.
THE NEW ADDITION WILL BE CLAD IN, UH, SIX INCH REVEAL SMOOTH CEMENTITIOUS SIDING.
ALL NEW WINDOWS WILL BE INSET AND RECESSED.
THE THE NEW TWO CAR, UM, GARAGE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED BUT REORIENTED TO FACE, UM, THE ALLEY AND BOTH APPLICATIONS MEET, UH, MEASURABLE STANDARDS AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
I AM NOT SURE IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE OR HE IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AT THIS TIME, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER, BUT IF YOU ARE IN THE PUBLIC, IF, IF YOU'RE THE APPLICANT AND YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, HE SAID HE ONLY IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, NOT HEARING, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
UM, COMMISSION MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FOR THIS ITEM? FOR ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE? COMMISSIONER DAVIS? YES.
UM, A CLARIFICATION, UM, I MAY NOT BE READING THIS CORRECTLY, BUT THE EVE HEIGHT FOR BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE GARAGE IS 23 FEET.
UM, BUT THE STANDARDS ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 20 FEET IF THE SIDE SETBACK IS LESS THAN SEVEN FEET AND 22 FEET, IF THE SETBACK IS OVER SEVEN FEET,
[00:55:01]
SO ON THE GARAGE SIDE THERE IS LESS THAN SEVEN FEET.AND ON THE HOUSE SIDE, UM, I DON'T, UM, IT'S LIKE A 22 FOOT SIDE YARD.
UM, BUT JUST A CLARIFICATION, I DON'T THINK IT MEETS THE EVE HEIGHT STANDARD IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS CORRECTLY.
SO I'LL ASK STAFF IF THEY CAN, UM, I CAN CLARIFY THAT ASPECT OF THE QUESTION.
S SO LOOKING AT THEM SEPARATE, I GUESS LET'S, UH, DO YOU KNOW THEM BY HEART? WHERE IS IT HERE? OH, DO YOU, DO YOU KNOW THEM BY HEART? NO, KNOW THE HEIGHT.
AS LET'S GO THROUGH THE, THE PROPOSAL AND JUST SEE WHAT, WHAT THEY'RE CALLED OUT AS.
LET'S JUST GO THROUGH THE, IN, IN, IN THE APPLICATION, RIGHT.
WE CAN IDENTIFY EACH OF THESE INDEPENDENTLY
SO FOR THE HOUSE, IT, I THINK HE'S MORE, HE HAS, BECAUSE THIS IS A WIDE LOT, IT SEEMED THAT HE DOES HAVE THE, THE, THE SPACE FOR IT, THE SITE SETBACK.
UM, THE RESOLUTION IS NOT GREAT.
I'M SORRY, I CAN'T SEE THAT'S FOR THE HOUSE.
UM, BUT IF YOU WOULD TO SAVE TIME, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT HE LOWERS IT TO 22 FEET, WE CAN, I'M ACTUALLY REALLY TRYING TO CORRECT THE RECORD, THE REPORT SO THAT IT READS CORRECTLY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT, UM, BUT IT IS OVER, UM, ON THE HOUSE SIDE, IT'S STILL OVER ONE FEET.
IT'S, UH, BECAUSE THE MAXIMUM IS, UM, 22 AND IT'S 23 AND ON THE GARAGE, UM, MAY I, MAY I RESPOND TO THAT.
UM, SO HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES, OTHER THAN THIS UNDERNEATH IT, BUT I DID NOT PUT IT IN THE, IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
IT DOES SAY THAT IF THE SITE SET BACK, LET'S SAY IS UM, EIGHT FEET, THEN YOU ADD ONE FOOT TO THE EVE HEIGHT.
BUT I DID NOT PUT THAT IN THE, IN IN THE REPORT.
IT DOES SAY THAT IN FINE PRINT.
YEAH, I PROBABLY, I SHOULD PUT IT IN.
SO, SO YASMIN, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS ON THE HOUSE, IF IT WERE SEVEN FEET, UM, SEVEN FEET AWAY WOULD BE 22 FEET.
BUT BECAUSE IT'S EIGHT FEET, IT'S ALLOWED TO HAVE 23 FEET YEAH.
BUT WE CAN, WE CAN AGAIN, UH, COMMISSIONER, WE CAN, I WILL MAKE SURE THAT'S FIXED.
BUT TO, IF, IF YOU WANNA PUT A CONDITION THAT HE LOWERS IT TO 22 FEET, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? IF, IF THAT ALSO SOLVES IT? YEAH, I JUST FIRST WANNA CONFIRM IF IT MEETS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES, THERE'S NOT A NEED TO CHANGE THE HEIGHT.
I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THE NUMBER.
I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE QUESTION.
I THINK FOR CLARIFICATION, I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN.
AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE GARAGE, UM, HEIGHT FOR THE EVE.
AND I KNOW SOMETIME ON THESE PDFS THERE'S THE LARGE SCALE PAPER.
SO WHEN YOU THEY GET CONDENSED DOWN, IT'S HARD TO READ SOME OF THE NUMBERS.
BUT I MEAN, ONE, IF ONE REMEDY I MIGHT SUGGEST IS THAT IF THE, IF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THEY COULD SAY, UH, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT IT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE, OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
SO THAT IF, IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY REGARDING ANY OF THESE EVITES THAT, THAT THE EVITES BE LOWERED TO MEET THE WHAT IS PUBLISHED.
UM, YOU, YOU COULD OFFER, UH, IF YOU WERE TO MAKE A MOTION, YOU MIGHT MAKE A MOTION IN SUCH A WAY.
I WAS REALLY ASKING FOR A CLARIFICATION.
UH, UH, MORE SO THAN A REDO OF THE, OF THE PLANS.
SO, BUT I WILL SAY THAT THIS IS A BIG HOME FOR THE HEIGHTS.
AND UM, WE DON'T HAVE, IT GOES OUT ON, SO YOU HAVE A SIDE, UM, ADDITION OUT TO THE SIDE AND THEN YOU HAVE THE GARAGE ON THE LEFT.
AND I KNOW I SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD, BUT WITHOUT A 3D RENDERING THERE, THERE, YEAH.
WHERE THERE IS A 3D, HE DIDN'T FINISH IT FOR THE 3D FOR
[01:00:01]
ON TIME.SO IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE FINAL UNDER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, IT DOES HAVE THE 3D.
HE DID NOT FINISH IT BY THE TIME THAT WE POSTED DRAFT AND HE SENT IT LATER.
SO I ADDED IT UNDER APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS PROPOSED 3D.
LEMME JUST TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT THAT THEN.
CAN I ASK THE QUESTION? UM, I THOUGHT THERE WERE NO CHANGES.
THAT SEEMS TO BE A PRETTY BIG ONE.
UM, AGAIN, IT, IT'S LEGAL CAN HELP WITH THAT UNDER APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.
UM, HE COULD HAVE BROUGHT IT IN AND PUT IT UNDER THE DOCUMENT.
WE FELT IT WAS EASIER TO PUT IT AS APPLICANT.
THAT'S, THAT'S A 3D THAT THE COMMISSION HAS ASKED FOR AND ENCOURAGED TO HAVE.
SO, OKAY, SO I'M NOT SEEING IT.
IS IT, IS IT ON B BEFORE OR B FIVE? IT'S ON B FOUR.
WHAT PAGE? IT'S THE, IT'S THE PAGE BEFORE LAST.
IT'S ON THE SCREEN IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT IT.
SO IT'S NOT, SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT IN THE PACKET.
HE DID NOT SUBMIT IT IT FOR THE PACKAGE SO THAT WE CAN'T, AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT, WE DON'T INCOMPLETE IT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE A 3D AND THAT IS WHY I UNDERSTAND.
BUT MY POSITION IS ON SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY MASSIVE WITHOUT A 3D IT'S NOT SOMETHING I CAN APPROVE.
HOWEVER, LOOKING AT THIS, UM, I HAVE IT.
YOU WANNA TELL ON PAGE SHE'S LOOKING AT MR. CHAIR.
I I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER COSGROVE.
UH, JUST MR. COSGROVE, IN THE STAFF REPORT, YOU NOTED THAT THE SIDING ON THE ADDITION, WE WILL HAVE A SIX INCH REVEAL, WHICH IS SLIGHTLY ATYPICAL FOR THE HEIGHTS.
AND I WANTED TO KNOW THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THAT.
IN THE PAST WE'VE ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO STAY WITH A FOUR INCH REVEAL, WHICH IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL SIDING AND THAT THE MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IS WHAT DIFFERENTIATES THE NEW FROM THE OLD.
BECAUSE THERE IS, AND, AND SO I JUST, THE SIX INCH REVEAL IS, IS, IS QUITE LARGE IN COMPARISON TO WHAT THE HOUSE, WHICH WOULD HAVE A FOUR INCH REVEAL.
AND IF I MAY ASK, THAT'S BASED ON JUST LIKE THE STANDARD WOOD BEVEL SIDING IN TERMS OF HOW, HOW FAR THE WOOD COULD SPAN BEFORE IT WOULD BREAK, BASICALLY BREAK IT WOULD SNAP INTO.
SO, UM, I THINK THE, THE FOUR IS, WAS BASED ON THE MATERIALITY OF THE ORIGINAL TYPE OF SIDING HAS BEEN, HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE.
'CAUSE IT'S A, IT'S THIN, A THIN MATERIAL AND IF IT, THE LONGER IT GETS THEN, THEN IT, IT MAY HAVE STRUCTURAL ISSUES.
SO THAT'S WHY THE FOUR INCH IS COMMON.
UM, STAFF BELIEVED THAT IN THIS INSTANCE IT WAS DIFFERENTIATED THAT THE ADDITION HAD, UH, A SIGHTING THAT WAS DIFFERENT.
UM, BUT THE APPLICANT WAS SAYING THAT HE'S HAPPY WITH WHATEVER CONDITION TO PUT WHATEVER REVEAL THE COMMISSION FINDS APPROPRIATE.
NOW HAVE A QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER BROBECK.
UM, YES, GIVEN THAT THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES, UH, THAT WERE, THAT COMMISSIONER DAVIS IS UNCOVERED IN THE APPLICATION, UH, IN ADDITION TO MATERIALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AFTER THE APPLICATION WAS PUBLICLY NOTICED THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW BEFORE TONIGHT.
UM, AND THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE ANSWERING TONIGHT.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO DEFER THIS APPLICATION SO THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE WHAT THEY'D LIKE, UH, THE COMMISSIONERS TO SEE AND THEN WE CAN VOTE ON A FULL PACKAGE.
AT THAT TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD AND SAY THAT THERE WERE NO CHANGES SUBMITTED, NOTHING WAS SUBMITTED AFTER THE DEADLINE.
THE 3D IS NOT A MUST FOR A COMPLETE APPLICATION ON A SATURDAY.
HE SENT IT TO ME AND SAID I WAS ABLE TO FINISH THE 3D.
SO INSTEAD OF HIM BRINGING IT TO COMMISSION, SHOWING IT ON THE DOC DOCUMENT, WHICH HE IS ALLOWED TO DO, UM, IT'S UM, IT'S TYPICAL FOR US TO PUT IT UNDER APPLICANT'S MATERIAL, UNDER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.
AND THE NAME SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
IT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT AND LEGAL CAN VERIFY.
WE'VE ALSO CHECKED WITH LEGAL.
YEAH, AND I WOULD JUST SAY, UM, WE HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL ADVICE THAT THE APPLICANT CAN BRING, UH, A RENDERING TO THIS MEETING.
UM, AND IT IS BEING SUBMITTED AND WAS DISCLOSED THAT IT WAS, THAT IT'S NOT, IT WAS NOT IN THE PACKET ON FRIDAY.
BUT AS I ASKED EARLIER, DID THE DESIGN CHANGE? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE DESIGN DID NOT CHANGE NOTHING.
ALL HE, HE DID NOT HAVE TIME TO DO THE 3D SO WE'RE ONLY TRYING TO HELP APPLICANTS.
UM, HE DIDN'T SUBMIT ANY NEW MATERIAL.
AGAIN, THIS COMMISSION HAS ENCOURAGED, UH, APPLICANTS TO GO WITH 3D.
SO INCLUDING IT WAS SIMPLY TO HELP COMMISSION MAKE A DETERMINATION.
[01:05:01]
IT ON THE DRAFT.OTHER APPLICANTS DID SUBMIT IT ON, ON TIME, THIS ONE DID NOT.
AND I I JUST WANNA SAY I'VE HEARD TWO OTHER COMMENTS.
ONE ABOUT HAVING THE SIDING HAVE A FOUR INCH, UH, OVERLAP, UH, MATCHING THE, THE HISTORIC, UH, USE IN THIS PART OF, OF THE DISTRICT.
UH, THERE'S ALSO BEEN A QUESTION ABOUT THE EVE HEIGHT THAT MAY RELATE TO THE GARAGE.
UH, IT, I BELIEVE THAT YOU SATISFY THE EVE HEIGHT FOR THE HOUSE IN THE QUESTIONS, BUT IF THAT EVE HEIGHT IS A CON ISSUE, A CONDITION CAN BE MADE THAT THE EVE HEIGHTS OF BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE GARAGE ARE CONFIRMED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.
UM, CHAIR, YOU STILL HAVE A OUTSTANDING MOTION TO DEFER.
AND, AND I I WASN'T AWARE THAT STAFF COULD RESPOND TO AN EMOTION TO A MOTION ONCE IT'S MADE.
BUT SINCE STAFF RESPONDED, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND.
UM, MY CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE NOT THE ONLY AUDIENCE WHEN APPLICATIONS ARE PUBLICLY POSTED.
AND SO IF THE PUBLIC IS NOT AWARE THAT NEW MATERIALS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT, THEY DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO COME AND TESTIFY.
THEY DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HOW CAN WE OR THE PUBLIC RESPOND TO THINGS THAT WERE JUST NOW BEING SHOWN.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS JUST POINTED OUT A MOMENT AGO THAT NOW THAT SHE'S SEEN THE 3D RENDERING, THIS IS A BIG CHANGE.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M MAKING MY MOTION.
I'LL ASK, IS THERE A SECOND TO DEFER THE PROJECT? I GOT YOU.
I NEED A MOTION TO SECOND IN ORDER TO HAVE A VOTE ON DEFERRING.
NOT HEARING A MOTION THAT MOTION DOESN'T, DOESN'T, UH, DOESN'T UH, PASS, UH, TO ADVANCE TOWARD A VOTE.
IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION TOWARD A DIFFERENT MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
UM, DO YOU, UM, AMEND YOUR MOTION TO ACCEPT THE SUGGESTION THAT THE SIDING BE FOUR INCHES, UM, AS PUT FORTH BY COMMISSIONER COSGROVE? AND WOULD YOU, UH, AMEND YOUR MOTION TO, UH, STATE PER COMMISSIONER DAVIS'S QUESTION, UM, TO CON JUST TO CONFIRM THAT THE EVE HEIGHTS ARE WITHIN THE PUBLISHED, UM, ACCEPTABLE HEIGHTS? YES.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? GARCIA? SECOND.
BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? UM, AND I JUST WANNA POINT OUT, WE, I HAVE A LEGAL, UM, DETERMINATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR THAT AN APPLICANT CAN BRING AN IMAGE AND PRESENT IT TO THIS BODY AT, AT THE TIME THAT WE MEET AND THAT IT'S PART OF THE PUBLIC DE DELIBERATION.
SO ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YEAH, I THINK, UM, UH, THAT, I MEAN, PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO ADD THAT AS AN ITEM TO THE WORKSHOP SITUATION.
UM, I I BELIEVE IT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA, YES.
UM, BECAUSE I THINK THAT EVERY, THIS, THIS CONTINUES TO BE A TOPIC.
I THINK IT'S ALREADY AN UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED, I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO CALL IT A RULE, BUT, UH, PROCEDURE TO, FOR APPLICANTS TO BRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO HELP, UH, SEE, UM, UM, EACH ONE OF THESE PROPOSED PROJECTS.
UM, IF, IF I'M INCORRECT, PLEASE STATE OTHERWISE, BUT I THINK WE'RE KIND OF MOVING OFF OF TARGET, GOING OVER AND OVER OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
THAT'S SORT OF THE POINT IS TO TRY AND EXPLAIN, I BELIEVE IF WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, UM, AN ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION SURROUNDING WHAT IS ALLOWED AND WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED SHOULD BE HAD, AND THEN WE OUGHT TO WRITE DOWN WHAT THAT RULE IS AND THEN IT'S CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE VIOLATING IT.
AND AS YOU SAID THAT WE'VE HAD THESE, THIS DISCUSSION IN THE LAST FEW MEETINGS, AND THAT'S WHY I HAVE ASKED THAT WE HAVE SUCH A MEETING, WHICH WAS ANNOUNCED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING, AND THAT WE CAN REVIEW, UH, THESE ITEMS AND ANY ITEM THAT A COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS SO THAT THE COMMISSION CAN FIND CONSENSUS BECAUSE IT'S THIS BODY AND THE WILL OF THIS BODY TO MAKE YOUR OWN, YOU KNOW, RULES.
AND, AND SO SINCE THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS, UM, THEN WE, I'M ASKING THAT WE HAVE THIS MEETING TO RESOLVE THIS.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL CALL THE VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? AYE.
[01:10:01]
ALL OPPOSED? ABSTAIN.OKAY, THAT MOTION PASSES AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, CHAIR RE, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, THIS IS STAFF MEMBER ARSLAN.
TODAY I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AGENDA, UM, NUMBER B 6 4 6 11 OMAR STREET.
THE PROPERTY IS A 1,508 SQUARE FOOT.
TWO STORY CONTRIBUTING AMERICAN FOURSQUARE RESIDENCE BUILT CIRCA 1912, LOCATED IN THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT ON A 8,484 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ALTERATION ADDITION.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 556 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY, UM, ADDITION AND INCREASE IN, UM, FIRST FLOOR AREA TO 2064 SQUARE FEET.
NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING ACCESSORY, NO CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE.
UM, DESIGN AND MATERIAL INCLUDE A SEVEN 12 HIP ROOF CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, PIER AND BEAM FOUNDATION AND COMPOSITION SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING FIBER.
CEMENT LAP SIDING, FOUR INCH REVEAL ON THE ADDITION, EXISTING WOOD SIDING TO REMAIN WOOD COLUMNS, WOOD DECKING, AND CONCRETE BLOCK PIER BASES.
AND THIS APPLICATION RECEIVED NO, UM, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS OR COMMENTS FROM THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION THAT WE ARE AWARE OF.
UM, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, DON'T CORRECT ANYONE SIGNED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, BUT IF YOU ARE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF.
I BELIEVE THE OWNERS AND THE AGENT ARE HERE.
BUT, UM, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK OR ONLY IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS YOU CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF, IF THEY COME UP.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME, BUT IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, I'LL REOPEN THE HEARING.
UH, COMMISSION MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS APPLICATION? I KNOW THIS WAS ALSO PULLED BY A COMMISSION MEMBER.
UM, MY QUESTION IS, UH, IF YOU GUYS, IF YOU COULD CHECK, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE, UM, ORIGINAL CORONER OF THE HOUSE IS NOT EXPOSED.
AND I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LOOK FOR IS THAT THE CORNERS ARE EXPOSED.
ANTHONY, CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT QUESTION? AND I KNOW WE'VE REALLY FOCUSED ON HAVING THREE CORNERS EXPOSED.
I MEAN, OBVI, OBVIOUSLY WE LIKE TO HAVE ALL FOUR CORNERS EXPOSED AS WELL, BUT CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT QUESTION? SURE.
BECAUSE THIS IS THE WOODLAND HEIGHTS.
UM, AT THE MOMENT, THERE'S NO, UH, GUIDELINES FOR IT.
SO IT'S NOT A MUST TO MAINTAIN ALL FOUR ORIGINAL CORNERS.
IT IS ENCOURAGED, BUT IT'S NOT A MUST TO GET AN APPROVAL.
I JUST WANTED A CLARIFICATION.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS ITEM? AND IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? COSGROVE MOVES TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
UH, ESCOBAR SECOND ESCOBAR SECONDS.
ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES.
WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM SEVEN.
AND IF WE COULD PRESENT ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT, UH, TOGETHER FOR 1805 COURTLAND STREET.
UM, CHAIR ACH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS STAFF MEMBER YASMINE ARSLAN.
I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
AGENDA ITEM B SEVEN AND B EIGHT AT, UM, 8 0 5 CORTLAND STREET.
UM, HOUSTON HEIGHTS, UH, SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UM, THE PROPERTY INCLUDES A 1,531 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY WOOD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, SITUATED ON A 6,600 INTERIOR LOT.
IT IS A CONTRIBUTING HIP BUNGALOW STYLE RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED CIRCA 1915.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN ALTERATION EDITION.
THE PROPOSED, UM, UH, IT, IT FOR TWO STORY EDITION AND A TWO STORY GARAGE APARTMENT AT THE REAR OF AN EXISTING ONE STORY WOULD, UH, FRAME CONTRIBUTING HOUSE.
IT'LL BE, UM, 927 SQUARE FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR, 640 THROUGH THREE ON THE SECOND.
THE ADDITION WILL BE CLAD IN PAINTED FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING WITH BOTH SIX INCH AND TWO INCH EXPOSURES AND TRIMMED WITH CELLULAR, UH, PVC TRIM.
THE PROPOSED EAVES WILL FEATURE EXPOSED DRAFTER TAILS TO MATCH THE EXISTING HISTORIC EAVES AND ROOFING WILL BE COMPOSITION SHINGLES.
THE NON-ORIGINAL REAR DOOR WILL BE REMOVED.
[01:15:01]
ORIGINAL WINDOWS ON THE REAR ELEVATION, UM, WILL ALSO BE REMOVED WHILE OTHER EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS WILL REMAIN ALL NEW PROPOSED, UM, WINDOWS WILL BE WOOD AND SET AND RECESSED.AS FOR THE, UM, GARAGE, IT'LL BE TWO STORY, UM, GARAGE, GARAGE APARTMENT LOCATED AT THE REAR OF IT, OF THE EXISTING OF OF THE HOUSE.
UM, THE GARAGE WILL INCLUDE A 528 SQUARE FOOT, FIRST FLOOR ON THE FIRST FLOOR, AND 462 ON THE SECOND.
THE STRUCTURE WILL BE CONNECTED TO THE MAIN HOUSE BY AN UNCONDITIONED BREEZEWAY ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND A BALCONY, UH, THE SECOND FLOOR.
THE EXTERIOR WILL BE, UM, CLAD WITH, UH, LAP SIDING WITH, UM, THE SAME EXPOSURE AS THE HOUSE.
UM, AND THE ROOF WILL BE FINISHED WITH COMPOSITION.
UH, SHINGLES STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ON BOTH ITEMS, UM, AND IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNERS ARE HERE AS WELL.
UM, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, BUT IF YOU ARE THE APPLICANT AND OR OWNER AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NOT HEARING ANYONE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME UNLESS THEIR QUESTIONS WILL REOPEN COMMISSION MEMBERS.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS APPLICATION? UM, YES.
UM, THERE ARE THREE THINGS THAT STAND OUT TO ME THAT I JUST NEED CLARIFICATION ON.
UM, THE REPORT SAYS THAT ALL PROPOSED WINDOWS WILL BE WOOD INSET AND RECESSED, BUT THE WINDOW INVENTORY INDICATES CASEMENT WINDOWS.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT CASEMENT WINDOWS ARE INSET AND RECESSED.
AND, UM, THE INSPECTOR IS NOT HERE.
I ASKED HIM THAT QUESTION BEFORE AND HE SAID THAT YES, HE CAN, THEY CAN INSERT AND RECESS THEM.
I HAVEN'T PERSONALLY DONE THAT, BUT OKAY.
THEN THE OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, IF WE LOOK AT THE ELEVATION, UM, JUST CALLING OUT, LOOK AT THE SOUTH ELEVATION.
THE RHYTHM OF THE WINDOWS IS THERE ISN'T A RHYTHM.
UM, AND I KNOW THAT LAST MONTH, UM, ONE OF THE APPLICANTS, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE, IT TURNED OUT THAT THEY HAD A, UM, A CLARA STORY OR A TRANSOM WINDOW, AND IT WAS IN THE PACKAGE, BUT IT HAD BEEN TAKEN, BUT THAT WAS, THERE WERE TWO, UM, THERE WAS ONE WITH THE TRANS WINDOW AND ONE WITHOUT.
AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT STAFF ADVISED THE APPLICANT TO TAKE, TO CHANGE THE WINDOW.
AND SO SINCE THIS WEEK WE'VE GOT CLEAR STORY WINDOWS COMING OUT OUR EARS ON A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHERE WE STAND ON THAT.
SO WE, WE LOOKED AT THEM, UM, AND, AND AGAIN, THIS IS A CASE BY CASE.
AND THIS INSTANCE WE FELT THAT THIS IS, UM, ON THE ADDITION, THIS IS FAR TO THE BACK.
AND, UM, IT DOES READ LIKE AN ADDITION.
UM, IT DOES READ LIKE IT'S A PRODUCT OF ITS OWN TIME, AND, UH, THEREFORE STAFF, UM, FELT THAT THEY CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL ON THIS WITHOUT THE CHANGE IN THE WINDOWS.
AND MY THIRD QUESTION IS, THERE IS A PORCH BALCONY ON THE ADDITION, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN ONE OF THOSE IN THE CONTEXT ARROW.
WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT PUTTING A PORCH THERE? I'M SORRY, THE PORCH OR THE BALCONY? I'M SORRY.
THERE'S A BALCONY ON THE, THERE'S A PORCH AND THERE'S A BALCONY.
SO THE BALCONY ON THE ADDITION.
SO WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
UM, AGAIN, BECAUSE IT'S ON AN INTERIOR LOT, IT'S ON THE ADDITION.
IT'S VERY DEEP, UM, NOT VERY VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, AND IF YOU CAN SEE IN THE PROPOSED 3D, UM, SO AFTER SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT, THERE, THERE WERE SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE YOUR POINT IS TAKEN, UM, STAFF DECIDED TO GO WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTED, UM, WHICH IS TO LEAVE THE, UH, SECOND STORY, THE, THE, THAT BALCONY THE WAY IT IS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE 3D VIEW, IT IS ANYBODY WALKING
[01:20:01]
DOWN THE SIDEWALK, THEY WILL SEE THAT.SO I JUST WANT US TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING.
I, YOU KNOW, I CAN, I CAN FILL IN A LITTLE BIT OF THE DISCUSSION, UM, THAT, UH, THE VICE CHAIR AND I HAD WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS AS WE REVIEW ALL PROJECTS, UM, MORE THAN A WEEK IN ADVANCE OF EACH MEETING.
UM, BUT I THINK THE, THE, THE MAIN, UM, THE MAIN ISSUE, UM, FROM, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IS THAT THE PROJECT, THE ADDITION ITSELF, WHICH STARTS AT THE REAR OF THE EXISTING HISTORIC HOME, IS A PRODUCT OF OUR TIME, UM, PROPORTION.
THE PROPORTION IS STILL SCALED BACK.
AND, UM, AS THE DESIGN SORT OF, UM, IT'S NOT A GIANT BLOCK OF, OF, OF AN ADDITION.
UM, EVEN THE REAR PART OF THE REAR PORCH THAT EXTENDS IS NOT COVERED.
SO IT'S KIND OF STAIR STEPPING BACK, LIKE, LIKE A, UH, IN A WAY JUST TO KIND OF DIMINISH THE EFFECT OF THAT MASS.
UM, AND SO AS HAS BEEN THE CASE WITH THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION AND IN SOME CASES THIS COMMISSION, UM, WE HAVE SEEN, UH, SOME PROJECTS THAT HAVE TOWARD THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE, A A SLIGHTLY MORE, I'LL USE THE WORD CONTEMPORARY, WHICH, UM, JUST TO BE MINDFUL OF CONTEMPORARY, EVERYTHING THAT WAS ONCE NEW WHEN IT WAS NEW WAS CALLED CONTEMPORARY.
SO THESE, THE, THE, THIS WORK HOME IN THE FRONT WAS A CONTEMPORARY STRUCTURE WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED.
AND, UM, ONE OF THE, WHILE MANY OF THE PROJECTS WE SEE TAKE A DIFFERENT, UH, ATTACK, UH, TACTIC, UM, HOW THEY MAKE THESE ADDITIONS.
UM, THIS APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED IN SUCH A WAY TO KIND OF GIVE THE ADDITION A BREATH OF, UM, OUR TIME, BUT BE, BUT STILL BE VERY, VERY RECESSIVE IN HOW THEY MADE THE PRESENTATION.
SO PART OF THAT IS AMASSING, PART OF THAT IS, AS YOU MENTIONED, THE USE OF CASEMENT WINDOWS, UH, WHICH ARE, WHICH OCCURRED IN THE FOLLOWING PERIOD AFTER THIS, WHICH ALSO DIFFERENTIATES THE, THE ADDITION FROM THE MAIN HOUSE.
AND SO, UM, WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT NO ONE WILL HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FALSE PAST BECAUSE IT, THE ADDITION DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A, UM, AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE THAT WAS INTENDED TO ALWAYS BE THERE.
AND SO IT IS THIS GRAY AREA THAT, THAT IS IN OUR ORDINANCE, UM, WHICH, UH, LOOKS AT THESE ITEMS. I CAN TELL YOU NATIONALLY, THE NATIONAL STANDARDS, WHICH OUR STANDARDS ARE LOOSELY BASED ON DO ALLOW FOR MORE OPEN INTERPRETATION OF OUR, OF OUR TIME.
BUT THAT IS STILL PROPORTIONALLY RECESSIVE.
AND SO, UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S UP TO THIS COMMISSION TO, TO FIND CONSENSUS ON, ON THE OVERALL DESIGN.
BUT, AND AGAIN, AND THIS COULD BE AN ITEM, BUT WE, UM, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE MEETING WAS OUTLINED ABOUT PROCEDURES AND, AND THINGS.
BUT IN, BUT IN GENERAL, WHEN WE HAVE OUR, UM, ONGOING EDUCATION MEETINGS WHERE WE PRESENT THINGS LIKE THIS, THAT'S, IT'S A GOOD TIME TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT, ABOUT THIS, UM, THIS ASPECT.
'CAUSE IT'S TIED TO OTHER ASPECTS OF WHETHER SOMEONE WANTS A TRADITIONAL DETAIL AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ABSTRACT ENOUGH OR SIMPLIFIED ENOUGH.
IT KIND OF, THIS, THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT'S VERY MUCH IN IN LINE WITH THAT, THAT DISCOURSE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE STAFF ON THIS ITEM? AND IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION? ONE QUICK QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER CORO QUESTION PRESENTATION.
YOU SAID THAT THE SIDING WAS GONNA MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE, BUT IN THE APPLICATION IT TALKS ABOUT A SIX INCH REVEAL AND A TWO INCH REVEAL.
AND IN THIS APPLICATION, I'M LESS CONCERNED WITH THE SIX INCH REVEAL BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL HOUSE HAS DIFFERENTIATED SIDING ON IT.
AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHICH IT WAS.
'CAUSE THE, DO THE DRAWINGS IN THIS CASE DO SHOW A DIFFERENCE IN THE SIDING WIDTH, WHEREAS IN THE PRIOR PROJECT THERE WAS NOT A DIFFERENCE.
WOULD THE ARCHITECT LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE ON THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION, THIS IS WHAT I HAVE SIX INCH AND A TWO INCH REVEAL, BUT THE HOUSE WOULD'VE A FOUR.
THE ORIGI, THE ORIGINAL HOUSE HAS A FOUR INCH, I ASSUME, I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? I, WHEN YOU FIRST PRESENTED IT, YOU SAID THE SIDING WAS GONNA MATCH THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, BUT THEN IN THE TEXT IT JUST SAYS SIX AND TWO.
SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO SEE WHETHER IT WAS MATCHING THE ORIGINAL OR IF IT WAS INDEED DIFFERENT.
I, IN MY SCRIPT, I DON'T SEE THAT I SAID MATCH EXISTING.
IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY AND MANY APPLICATIONS, I APOLOGIZE.
BUT ON MY SCRIPT IT DOES SAY THE, THE SIX INCH AND THE TWO INCH.
UM, WOULD, WOULD THE DESIGNER LIKE TO COME, UH, SPECIFY? NO.
YEAH, I'LL, I'LL ASK THE QUESTION OF DESIGNER.
UM, LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING BACK UP.
[01:25:01]
THE QUESTION, I THINK THERE WERE, THERE WERE TWO QUESTIONS.WHAT, WHAT IS THE SIDING REVEAL FOR THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND, UM, WHAT IS THE, UM, THE, THE SIDING REVEAL FOR THE, UM, FOR THE ADDITION? AND, AND IF, UM, IF THE OTHER COULD SIT DOWN FOR A MOMENT, IF, IF YOU, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU CAN, YOU CAN, UH, SPEAK WHEN THE, THE SPEAKER IS FINISHED.
BUT, UM, IF YOU COULD IN, YOU COULD START BY STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.
UH, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS LATHAN HENDERSON.
I'M ACTUALLY, UH, ONE OF THE OWNERS OF OF 8 0 5 CORTLAND.
UM, I THINK THE INTENT WAS TO, YOU KNOW, HONOR AND MATCH THE HISTORIC, UH, CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
AND SO IF THAT DID NOT COME THROUGH IN THE WORDING, UM, I THINK WE'RE CERTAINLY, UM, FLEXIBLE TOWARDS, UM, AMENDMENT TO THAT LANGUAGE WHAT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED.
UM, AND THEN IS THERE ANOTHER SPEAKER WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I SAID I'M NOT HUNG UP ON IT.
I JUST, YEAH, LET, LET, LET'S GET CLARIFI, YASMINE, ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SHARE? SO ON THE, ON THE 3D ON PAGE 14 OF 22, THE, THE, I GUESS IT SHOWS WHERE THE TWO INCHES RIGHT UNDER THAT WINDOW OF THE GARAGE ON TOP OF THE COVERING ON TOP OF THE PORCH.
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE HE'S MENTIONING THE TWO INCH.
UM, IN SOME PERIODS IT WAS CUSTOM TO HAVE A SHORTER REVEAL ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO DISTINGUISH THE FIRST FLOOR TO CREATE A BASE, SORT OF A LAY, A LAYERED BASE, UM, CONTRACT.
BUT, BUT AGAIN, IF COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE SIDING TO MATCH THE ADDITION, WE ARE HAPPY TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS.
AND MY QUESTION, JASMINE, WHICH IS, WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE ON THE MAIN HOUSE? DOES A CONTRACTOR KNOW THAT? IS THE GENTLEMAN PREPARED TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION OR COULD HE, COULD HE ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? COMMISSION? UM, IF YOU COULD BEGIN BY STATING YOUR NAME FOR THE MICROPHONE.
YEAH, GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONER.
AND SO MY QUESTION WAS, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT EXPOSURE FOR THE SIDING IS ON THE, ON THE PRIMARY HISTORIC STRUCTURE AT THE STREET? CAN I SEE? CAN I SEE THE, AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU DON'T KNOW.
YEAH, THOUGH, IT'S THE EXISTING HOUSE AT THE BOTTOM, BELOW THE WINDOWS.
I BELIEVE IT'S SEVEN AND A QUARTER, I'M PRETTY SURE.
AND THE TOP IS, UH, 'CAUSE THIS ONE HAS, UM, VINYL SIDING, WHICH IS NOT ORIGINAL.
SO THE TOP, UH, PORTION OF THE, UH, OF THE SIDING, I BELIEVE IT IS FOUR.
I'M SORRY, I, I DON'T REMEMBER THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE MATCHING.
ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION, DO YOU KNOW UNDER THE VINYL SIDING IS THE ORIGINAL SIDING THAT ACTUALLY IS STILL EXISTING? YES.
WE TOOK A PICTURE AND, AND, UM, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND.
SO, BUT I KNOW THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE SIDING IS, IS SEVEN AND A QUARTER IN THE UPPER PART IT'S, UH, IT IS CLOSER TOGETHER.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE MATCHING AT THE, AT THE WINDOW, YOU KNOW, ON THE, UH, GABLE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THAT GARAGE APARTMENT.
SO WE TRY AND INCORPORATE SOME OF THAT.
AND, UM, JUST ONE, I HAVE ONE MORE OWNER, UH, TO, TO SPEAK IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONER SEIDEL, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH.
UM, SO I MEAN, ON THE ELEVATIONS IT'S CLEARLY CALLED OUT WHAT THE EXPOSURE IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE I DON'T THINK THAT LOOKING AT A 3D RENDERING TO TRY AND DETERMINE THE EXPOSURE, YOU KNOW, FOR US, I MEAN FOR A BUILDER, EVEN IF YOU USE A SEVEN AND A QUARTER INCH SIDING, YOU CAN PLAY WITH EXPOSURE.
OBVIOUSLY FROM A PRICING STANDPOINT, IT BECOMES NOT SMART.
SO WHAT, WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS WHO, I DON'T KNOW WHO THE, THE ARCHITECT IS, BUT YOU'RE POINTING TO A SECTION AND CALLING IT THREE INCH EXPOSURE AND SIX INCH EXPOSURE.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE GO FROM HERE, BUT IF, IF YOU SAY YOU WERE GOING TO MATCH, LIKE,
[01:30:01]
THEN YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE EXPOSURES ARE AND HAVE YOUR ARROW SAY THAT EXACT DIMENSION FOR CLARITY.IN MY EXPERIENCE IS HAVING MEASURED EXPOSURE ON OLDER HOMES IS THAT EVERY TIME I MEASURE A BOARD, IT'S ACTUALLY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BY A VERY SMALL AMOUNT.
AND TYPICALLY IT'S BECAUSE JUST LIKE WHEN YOU'RE LAYING BRICKS, SOMETIME THEY WANTED TO MAKE THE COURSE COURSE WITH THE WINDOWSILL OR SOME FEATURE SO THAT THE, YOU, YOU HAD FULL BOARDS AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO CUT THE BOARDS OR TRIM THEM DOWN.
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ONLY HAD HAND SAWS AND SOMEONE HAD TO SHARPEN THOSE SAWS EVERY NIGHT BECAUSE THEY GOT DULL.
SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND, HAVING HEARD THAT THERE'S ORIGINAL SIGHTING UNDER THIS VINYL SIGHTING THAT'S GONNA BE EXPOSED, THAT SOMEONE, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THEY COULD SIMPLY SAY THE SIDING ON THE ADDITION WILL MATCH THE SIDING AS FOUND ON THE MAIN STRUCTURE.
AND WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'S A, A BIT OF DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE SIZES ARE.
BECAUSE EVEN IF, IF EITHER AS AN ARCHITECT, IF I SAID TO PUT SOME SIDING UP, A CERTAIN EXPOSURE, THE PERSON PUTTING IT UP IS GONNA PUT IT UP.
AND IF I GO BACK AND MEASURE IT, IT'S NOT GONNA BE EXACT, I PROMISE YOU.
SO, UM, BUT I THINK IF IT DOES MATCH THE APPEARANCE, WHICH IS THE INTENT OF THE OWNER AS STATED, THEN I, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THAT APPROACH.
BUT, UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR NOT A MOTION? I, I JUST ONE, ONE POINT COMMISSIONER GARCIA FOR COMMISSIONERS, UM, DAVIS AND SADEL, I, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING, WITH EVERYTHING THEY'RE SAYING ON THIS.
UM, THI THIS IS ONE OF THOSE, UM, RARE EXAMPLES WHERE A RENDERING DOESN'T REALLY REFLECT WHAT'S BEING BUILT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE 2D DIMENSION, UM, OR THE 2D DRAWINGS AND THEN THE, UM, THE RENDERINGS, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO CONVEY WHAT THE BUILDING'S GONNA LOOK LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE RAILINGS THAT DON'T MATCH WHAT'S SHOWN AND ARE SOME OF THE RAILINGS ARE MISSING.
AND SOME OF 'EM LOOK LIKE CHICKEN WIRE AND, UM, THE UPPER ONES ON THE RENDERING LOOK LIKE SOME A FRENCH SCROLL OR SOMETHING.
BUT THE RENDERING SHOWS, UM, UH, I MEAN TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE HOG WIRE ON THE, ON THE SOUTH, SOUTH SIDE ELEVATIONS.
UM, I, I THINK IT'S, I IMPORTANT WHEN WE DO REQUEST RENDERINGS OR IF, IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT, UM, UM, A, A A BULLET POINT THAT THEY BE DETAILED OR, YOU KNOW, THERE NEEDS TO BE A MINIMUM LEVEL WHERE WE CAN ACCEPT THEM OR NOT ACCEPT THEM.
UM, WELL, I GUESS WE COULDN'T DO THAT.
UH, AN APPLICANT CAN SUBMIT WHATEVER THEY WANT, BUT, UM, THERE JUST NEEDS TO BE A, A POINT WHERE THE RENDERINGS ARE, ARE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT'S GOING ON, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE SUBMITTED WITH THE DOCUMENTATION, WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE TWO DS.
UM, AND I THINK IF THAT HAPPENED, A LOT OF THE CONCERNS WOULD BE ALLEVIATED.
IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND, AND OR WITH ANY AMENDMENTS, I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE, ONCE WE KNOW WHAT THE SID IS ON THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, THAT IT AN EFFORT IS MADE TO MAKE THE ADDITION CONSISTENT.
MAY I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE HE HAS THE SIX INCH AND THEN HE HAS THE TWO OR THREE INCH UNDERNEATH IT.
DO YOU WANT EVERYTHING TO HAVE MR NO, I'M FINE WITH THE DIFFERENTIATION.
AND IT APPEARS AS IF MAYBE THERE IS SOME DIFFERENTIATION ON THE ORIGINAL HOUSE, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS SAYING.
LIKE I UNDERSTAND THERE'S GONNA BE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AND THE ADDITION, BUT IT'S HARD TO KNOW BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL SIGHTING IS ON THE HOUSE.
YOU KNOW, I, I TRUST THAT STAFF CAN HANDLE REVIEWING THAT AND I'M WILLING TO PUT FORTH A MOTION WITH THAT CAVEAT.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR TRUST, SIR.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEMS NUMBER NINE AND 10, OH SORRY, NINE, UM, AT 1 0 1 1 FUGATE STREET.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON TERRANCE JACKSON, AND TODAY I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM B NINE AT 10 11 FUGATE.
THE PROPERTY INCLUDES A HISTORIC 1078 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY WOOD FRAMED SINGLE FAMILY BUNGALOW STYLE
[01:35:01]
RESIDENCE CONSTRUCTED IN 1926 WITH THE DETACHED GARAGE APARTMENT.THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN FIVE ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS, IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN INTERIOR REMODEL OF THE EXISTING GARAGE, CONSTRUCT A 578 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY ADDITION, CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION WITH SIX OVER 12 ROOF PITCH TO MATCH THE EXISTING.
THE EVE HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION WILL BE 15 FEET THREE INCHES WITH THE MAXIMUM RIDGE HEIGHT OF 17 FEET AND 11 INCHES.
THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING GARAGE ROOF RIDGE OF 21 FEET AND SEVEN INCHES AND PROPOSE A NEW RIDGE HEIGHT OF 24 FEET TWO INCHES.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION WITH THE, WITH THE HOME, I'M SORRY, TO THE HOME WITH A FIVE AND A HALF INCH REVEAL WITH CEMENTITIOUS SIDING.
CHANGE THE FENESTRATION ON THE EXISTING GARAGE.
REMOVE ONE OF THE GARAGE DOORS TO COVER AND COVER WITH CEMENT CEMENTITIOUS SIDING.
CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION WITH COMP COMPOSITION, ROOF SHINGLES, UH, NEW WINDOWS TO BE WOOD OR WOOD CLAD WINDOWS.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL CHAIR AND HHC.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
UM, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
I HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP, WHICH IS SAM NUAS.
UH, ONLY IF Y'ALL HAVE A QUESTION OR ANYTHING.
I THINK, UH, THIS WAS, AGAIN, PRETTY SMALL ADDITION TO THIS USING THE EXISTING GARAGE THAT'S IN PLACE.
UH, I THINK IT WORKED OUT PRETTY WELL, BUT IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW.
WE'LL LET YOU KNOW IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NOT HEARING ANYONE.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? THIS WAS ANOTHER, UH, ITEM THAT WAS PULLED.
UH, IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? I MOTION TO ACCEPT C SMITH.
COMMISSIONER CARL SMITH MAKES THE MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.
AGAIN, THIS IS STAFF PERSON TERRENCE JACKSON.
I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM B 10 AT 11 18 2 LANE.
THE PROPERTY INCLUDES A HISTORIC 943 SQUARE FOOT.
ONE STORY CRAFTMAN STYLE WOOD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SITUATED ON A 6,600 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT LOCATED, LOCATED IN THE HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ADDITION TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE HOME AND AN INTERIOR REMODEL OF THE EXISTING HOME.
THE EXISTING STONE HAS CAUSED THE FOUNDATION AND FRAMING OF THE HOME TO DETERIORATE, DETERIORATE.
THUS, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THE STONE PIECE BY PIECE, REPAIR THE FOUNDATION AND WALL FRAMING, UH, THEN INSTALL SIGHTING IN PLACE OF THE STONE.
PRE PREVIOUS STAFF INSTRUCTED THE APPLICANT TO REMOVE THE STONE, HAVE IT PLACED ON A PALLET IN NUMBER TO BE, TO BE PUT BACK IN PLACE AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.
STAFF BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE, THIS WOULD PLACE A HUGE FINANCIAL STRAIN ON THE PROJECT AND WOULD ASK THAT THE HHC CONSIDER THE STONE BE REPLACED WITH SITING OR PROVIDE OTHER SUGGESTIONS.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,770 SQUARE FOOT REAR REAR EDITION FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS.
THE FIRST FLOOR WILL HAVE A 732 SQUARE FOOT EDITION, AND THE SECOND FLOOR EDITION WILL BE 1038 SQUARE FEET.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING WINDOWS AND DOORS, PARTIALLY DEMOLISH THE REAR WALL TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE ADDITION TO BE CONSTR CONSTRUCTED WITH A MAX RIDGE HEIGHT OF 26 10, 26 FEET, 10 INCHES.
CONSTRUCT THE SECOND FLOOR EAVE HEIGHT AT 20 FEET, SEVEN INCHES TO THE TOP OF THE EVE.
CONSTRUCT THE ROOF WITH NEW COMPOSITION SHINGLES WITH A FIVE OVER 12 ROOF PITCH.
THE EXISTING FOUR OVER 12 ROOF PITCHES TO IS TO REMAIN.
THEY WILL CONSTRUCT THE HOME WITH A NINE FOOT FIRST FLOOR CEILING HEIGHT AND A NINE FOOT, UH, SECOND FLOOR CEILING HEIGHT, INSTALLED NEW WINDOWS TO BE WOOD OR WOOD CLAD, WOOD OR WOOD CLAD, INSET AND RECESSED.
ON THE ADDITION, UH, THE ADDITION WILL ALSO BE CLAD WITH SMOOTH CEMENTITIOUS SIDING, UM, AND TRIM AT THE ADDITION.
EXISTING FINISHED FLOOR HEIGHT IS ONE FOOT THREE INCHES AND IT
[01:40:01]
WILL BE RAISED TO TWO FEET FOR THE, FOR THE ALTERATION.AND THEY WILL REPAIR THE EXISTING FACIA SOFFIT WITHIN KIND MATERIALS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE HHC.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM, BUT IF YOU ARE HERE IN THE, IN THE AUDIENCE AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM, PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF NOT HEARING ANYONE.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS OF STAFF FROM COMMISSIONER MEMBERS COMMISSIONER DAVIS? UM, YES.
I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOSS OF THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL OF THE STONE ON THE HOUSE.
I ACTUALLY PULLED THE ARCHIVE.
UM, AND THIS IS ORIGINAL STONE HAVING BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE WITH A HOUSE THAT HAD STONE.
UM, WE PROVIDED ENGINEERING REPORTS.
WE DID, WE, WE JUMPED THROUGH ALL KINDS OF HOOPS TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STONE COULD BE SAVED OR NOT.
AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO MAKE ME FEEL OKAY WITH TAKING THE STONE OFF.
UM, I MEAN, SO THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE TO PLEAD THEIR CASE.
UH, BUT I WILL SAY THAT, UM, UH, STAFF WENT TO THE, UH, LIBRARY TO GET THE SANBORN MAP.
UM, AND I BELIEVE YOU WILL SEE ON ONE OF THE PAGES, UM, BECAUSE THE SANBORN MAPS ARE PASTED ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, UM, WE ARE NOT SURE IF THE STAFF IS, I MEAN, IF THE STONE IS ORIGINAL BECAUSE IT, THE SANBORN THAT WE FOUND THAT THAT'S IN COLOR.
UM, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT DATE WAS.
IT COULD HAVE BEEN 61, IT COULD HAVE BEEN 55.
UH, BUT IT WAS PASTED OVER THE ORIGINAL SANDBORN COLORED SANDBORN TO BE ABLE TO TELL IF THE STONE WAS ORIGINAL.
SO, UM, I WOULD BE INCLINED TO KNOW WHAT RESEARCH YOU DID TO FIND OUT THAT THE STONE WAS IN FACT, ORIGINAL AND WHAT YEAR THAT WAS.
SO I JUST ASKED TO PULL THE ARCHIVES AND UM, THE EARLIEST DATE I HAVE IS FROM, UH, 1927, AND IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT WAS STONE.
SO, UM, I MEAN, YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY OBLIGATED TO, UH, DECIDE IF YOU DON'T WANT THE STONE TO BE REMOVED.
UM, BUT AS, AS I MENTIONED, I BELIEVE LAST MONTH WHEN THE PROJECT WAS DEFERRED, UM, THE STONE IS SEVERELY DESTROYING THIS HOME.
UM, I CAN'T EVEN GET IN THE HOUSE TO TAKE PHOTOS.
SO YOU CAN SEE THE FOUNDATION 'CAUSE OF HOW UNSAFE IT IS.
UM, SO, UM, IT'S EITHER WE ALLOW THEM TO REMOVE THE STONE AND PLACE IT ON PALLETS LIKE WAS PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED, AND THEY PUT IT BACK UP AFTER THEY REPAIR THE FOUNDATION AND THE FRAMING OR, UM, WE ALLOW THEM TO REMOVE THE STONE AND, UM, THEY ARE ABLE TO SHORE UP THE, UH, FOUNDATION AND FRAMING AND THEY BE ALLOWED TO PUT SIDING.
UM, AGAIN, THAT'S A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IF YOU GUYS ARE WELCOME TO DISCUSS IT.
UM, BUT, BUT STAFF, HAVING BEEN INSIDE THE HOUSE YEARS AGO AND SEEING THE HOME AND WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO IT OR WHAT THE STONE HAS DONE TO IT, UM, STAFF FELT THAT, UM, A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP WOULD MORE THAN LIKELY BE, UH, ENACTED BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF, UH, BECAUSE HE HAS TO, OR WHOEVER THE APPLICANT MAY BE, UM, WOULD HAVE TO, UM, HAVE A STONE CONTRACTOR, BUT WOULD HAVE TO LOCATE THAT STONE TRACK CONTRACTOR, HAVE THEM REMOVE THE STONE PIECE BY PIECE, UM, PLACE IT ON A PALLET, SECURE IT TILL IT DOESN'T GET DAMAGED BY THE, UH, ELEMENTS, THEN REPAIR THE FOUNDATION AND PUT IT BACK UP, UH, PIECE BY PIECE LIKE I MENTIONED.
SO, UM, AGAIN, I I'M OPEN FOR YOU GUYS TO DISCUSS IT.
IT'S JUST A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND MY, UH, UH, GINGER BURN, BERNIE.
SO AS WE MENTIONED THE SANBORN MAPS EARLIER, IF YOU LOOK AT THE BLACK AND WHITE ONE, YOU SEE IT JUST SAYS D UH, AND THEN YOU LOOK AT THE LATER ONE, IT'S CLEARLY, IT SAYS THE VEN APOSTROPHE D MEANS VENEERED.
SO THERE'S A CHANGE FROM THAT, UH, EARLIER ONE, UM, SHOWING, INDICATING THAT THE STONE LOOKS LIKE IT WAS ADDED LATER.
I MEAN, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED
[01:45:01]
IN THE FORTIES, FIFTIES UP TO 1961.THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, THAT IT WAS, UM, THEY UPDATED THESE SANDBORN MAPS OVER THE YEARS.
BUT, UM, IF THAT, THAT DRAWING, THAT BLACK AND WHITE VERSION, IT DOESN'T INDICATE, IT'S HARD TO TELL WITHOUT THE COLOR, BUT IT DOESN'T INDICATE LIKE THE SECOND ONE THAT IT'S VENEERED.
THAT'S MY GENERAL ASSESSMENT FROM LOOKING AT IT AGAIN.
WHAT IS THE DATE OF THE SANBORN MAP YOU'RE LOOKING AT? OKAY.
THE, UM, IT CAN GET CONFUSING, BUT THE BLACK AND WHITE VERSION MUST BE FROM 1924 ISH.
AND, UM, THE SAND BOARD COMPANY WOULD SEND A REPRESENTATIVE OUT TO UPDATE THE MAPS OVER TIME.
AND SO THE SECOND ONE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, YOU SEE A CORRECTION RECORD, THAT'S WHEN THEY WOULD SEND THE REPRESENTATIVE OUT TO RESURVEY.
UM, THIS ONE WAS BEGINNING IN 1942, THEY SENT THEIR REPRESENTATIVE OUT TO CORRECT THAT 1924 SANBORN MAP.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THEY CORRECTED IT OVER TIME, 42, 43, 44 UP THROUGH 1961.
SO THE ONE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHERE IT SAYS VENEERED COULD HAVE BEEN UPDATED IN 1942 OR 61 OR ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN THEN.
UM, BUT IT IS, UM, AFTER THE TWENTIES, WHEREAS YOU CAN SEE THE BLACK AND WHITE ONE.
I JUST, I DON'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THIS SAYS 1927.
WELL, WHAT, WELL, IF I MAY, SO ONE THING, UH, MR. DAVIS, DID YOU REQUEST THIS INFORMATION FROM THE HARRIS COUNTY ARCHIVE QUESTION? YES.
SO AND SO, UM, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING MAY BE TRUE MM-HMM
UM, BUT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE HOUSE IS OLDER THAN THAT DATE AND DIDN'T HAVE THE STONE AND THEN IT GOT PICKED UP AT A LATER DATE WHEN THE, WHEN THEY CAME BACK TO DO THE REVISION, WHICH WAS MUCH LATER, PERHAPS IN THE FORTIES BECAUSE THE CHANGE DID OCCUR IN THE TWENTIES, BUT THEY DIDN'T CATCH IT TILL THE FORTIES.
BUT IT DOES, IT, IT, IT APPEARS TO ME, AND, AND I'M OPEN THAT THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS STILL BUILT WITHOUT THIS, UH, STONE SIDING ON IT.
IT'S MY UNDER, IT'S, MY OTHER UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, UM, THERE MAY NOT BE A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THIS STONE, WHICH IS PART OF THE ISSUE WHY THIS HOUSE HAS SUFFERED.
BECAUSE SOMETIMES WHEN THINGS ARE VENEERED, THEY DON'T HAVE A SERIOUS GRATE BEING, UH, INSTALLED.
AND THEN WHAT IS OCCURRING, THERE'S SO MUCH ROTTEN WOOD AND TERMITES BEHIND THIS STONE.
THEY, THE STONE HAS TO BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO MAKE THE REPAIRS.
IT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING MM-HMM
AND, YOU KNOW, IF THE STONE WAS ORIGINAL, ONE COULD SAY, WE WANT TO PUT IT, HAVE IT, PUT IT BACK ON.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO NUMBER IT.
I, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY STONE MASON THAT WOULD NUMBER FOR A HOUSE LIKE THIS, BUT, BUT YOU COULD PUT IT BACK UP IF IT'S NOT ORIGINAL BECAUSE WE, WE LOOK AT THIS EXAMINATION, THEN WE COULD ENTERTAIN A DIFFERENT MATERIAL.
UM, BUT IT, BUT IT, IT COULD BE THAT THE DOCUMENT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, WAS IT, WAS IT A RENOVATION OR THAT'S WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCT, IT WAS BUILT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THIS IS A TAX ASSESSMENT FROM 1927.
SO SOMETIMES IT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION, SOMETIMES IT'S A, IT'S A RENOVATION THAT TAKES PLACE.
BUT IS IT, DOES IT STATE ANYWHERE? NO.
DOES IT STATE IN, COULD I MAKE A, UH, JUST FOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT 'CAUSE I FAILED, FAILED TO MENTION IT.
THIS HOME WAS, UH, BUILT ACCORDING TO OUR RECORDS CIRCA 1915, WHICH IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MORE EARLIER ONES THAT I'VE EVER SEEN.
UM, I JUST WANNA THROW THAT OUT THERE.
SO IT, IT COULD BE THAT IT WAS BUILT IN 15, IT'S RECORDED AS A FRAME HOUSE ON THAT EARLY, UM, 1924 SANBORN.
IT MIGHT'VE BEEN CHANGED IN 27 AND THEN IT DIDN'T GET PICKED UP UNTIL THE FORTIES OR LATER.
UM, BUT THAT WOULD MEAN THAT IT'S, IT WASN'T ORIGINAL TO THE HOME IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
IF, IF, IF WHAT I SAID IS TRUE AND I CAN, I CAN TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT YOU COULD SAVE ME A LOT OF TIME AND HEARTACHE IF YOU JUST PUT THE DATE ON THE SANBORN MAP.
WELL, AND IT'S COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION MANY YEARS AND, UM,
[01:50:01]
UM, GINGER, BERNIE HAS NOT BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION ALL THOSE YEARS.SO WE NEVER HAD AN EXPERT WITNESS THAT WE COULD CALL A LIFELINE AND ACTUALLY ASK THEM A QUESTION LIKE ON A TELEVISION SHOW.
SO, UM, I APPRECIATE HAVING THE ABILITY TO HAVE AN EXPERT WITNESS THAT'S ALWAYS HERE TO HELP US.
BUT AGAIN, THAT'S WHY YOU SHOULD GO TO THE LIBRARY.
'CAUSE A LOT OF INFORMATION IS HELD THERE THAT COULD HELP YOU DISCERN, UM, YOUR HISTORIC BUILDING.
SO I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE STONE DOES NEED TO COME OFF TO MAKE THE REPAIRS.
IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THE STONE IS ORIGINAL, UH, WHAT TO PUT BACK AS A CONDITION, WHETHER STONE OR THE SIDING THAT THE APPLICANT ASKED FOR IS UP, IS UP TO THE CONSENSUS OF THIS BODY.
SO, UM, COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, SORRY, THE SANBORN, UH, THAT'S IN THE PACKAGE SHOWS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT ALSO SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN VENEERED.
IF I'M READING THE NOTATION CORRECTLY, IS THAT STILL THERE? AND IF SO, IS THERE STONE ON IT? UH, SO I'M GONNA BE HONEST, I DO NOT RECALL.
IT'S BEEN YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN OUT HERE.
UM, UH, YEAH, I I I WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT I I JUST DO NOT KNOW.
I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER BROBECK.
UM, FIRST FOR COMMISSIONER DAVIS, ARE YOU CONVINCED THAT THE STONE IS NOT ORIGINAL OR IS THAT STILL AN OPEN QUESTION FOR YOU? I'M GOING WITH GINGER ON THIS.
AND THEN SECOND QUESTION, UM, LEGAL CLARIFICATION, UM, IS ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ORIGINAL, NOT HISTORIC? SO IF A HOUSE IS BUILT IN 1920 AND SOMEONE DID COOL STUFF TO IT IN 1921, IS NOTHING THAT HAPPENED IN 1921 CONSIDERED HISTORIC FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS COMMISSION OR NOT? I'M AFRAID I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
YEAH, I, I I CAN TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THOUGH.
SO IF, IF, UM, IF THE CHANGES MADE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED HISTORIC, IT HAS TO DO WITH, UH, WHETHER IT ADDED SIGNIFICANCE OR NOT, UH, TO THE STRUCTURE OR WHETHER PERHAPS IT WAS, UM, IF IT DID NOT ADD SIGNIFICANCE LIKE IT WAS AN ODD ADDITION, UM, THEN IT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED, UM, IMPORTANT HISTORIC FABRIC.
THE OTHER THING I WILL MENTION IS THAT BY ADDING THE STONE APPLIED AS A VENEER, WHICH BASICALLY TRAPPED MOISTURE, UH, BEHIND THE STONE WHERE THE WOOD WAS, WHICH THEN ALLOWED, IT, ALLOWED THE WOOD TO ROT AND FALL APART AND DISINTEGRATE, OR IT, IT, IT APPEARS THAT THIS ALTERATION ADDED TO THE DEMISE OF THE HOUSE STRUCTURALLY.
SO, UM, ONE COULD STATE THAT THIS WAS AN ADVERSE EFFECT TO DO THIS THE WAY THEY DID IT.
IF MAYBE IF THEY HAD HAD MOISTURE BARRIER BEHIND IT, MAYBE THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE CAUSED THAT DAMAGE, BUT, UM, MAYBE IT HAD A PROPER FOUNDATION.
IT'S WILL, I THINK IT'S WITHIN THE DISCRETION.
I WILL SAY THIS, WE HAVE, THE COMMISSION HAS LOOKED AT PROJECTS THAT HAD ORIGINAL, LIKE MASONRY ON HOMES AND THE ENTIRE, UH, REAR WOOD WALL SYSTEM WAS TERMITE INFESTED AND ROTTED AND NO LONGER EXISTED.
SO THE, THE COMMISSION HAS ALLOWED REMOVAL OF EVEN HISTORIC COMMISSIONARY TO MAKE REPAIRS AND THEN PUT THE, PUT MATERIAL BACK ON.
AND AGAIN, THE COMMISSION COULD GIVE GRANT APPROVAL TO REMOVE THE STONE, TO MAKE THE REPAIRS.
AND THEN BASED ON WHAT IS FOUND IN THAT PROCESS, ONE COULD REEVALUATE THE DECISION OF WHAT TO PUT ON IN TERMS OF THE SIDING OF THE HOUSE.
IT'S REALLY UP TO THIS BODY TO DECIDE.
SO MR. CHAIR, TO CLARIFY WHAT I THINK I HEARD WAS THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS IT'S SUBJECTIVE.
IT'S, IT'S WHATEVER WE DECIDE YES.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS, DO YOU THINK THAT THE STONE CONTRIBUTES TO THE HISTORIC QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OR NOT? AND I'M ASKING YOU BECAUSE I COMMEND YOU FOR DOING YOUR OUTSIDE WORK.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS HOUSE IS ADORABLE AND I LOVE THE STONE ON IT, BUT IF INDEED IT IS NOT ORIGINAL, AND IF INDEED, WHEN YOU START TAKING THE STONE OFF, IF YOU FIND THAT THERE REALLY IS NO, NO FOUND NO STRUCTURE BEHIND IT, THEN I HAVE TO AGREE THAT IT NEEDS TO COME DOWN.
AND THAT'S WHY I MENTIONED THAT I AM, WHEN I'VE DONE THIS BEFORE, I HAD ENGINEER REPORTS THAT I COULD CLEARLY SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT IT IS.
SO, UM, I I'M, I'M HAPPY WITH THIS.
I HAVE ONE OTHER COMMENT THAT, OKAY, PLEASE, WE CAN MOVE OFF THAT
[01:55:01]
IS THAT THE, UM, AND I HATE TO BE HARPING ON THIS, BUT IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PRO, THE EFFORT OF PROVIDING A 3D RENDERING, COULD YOU ASK THEM TO DO IT CORRECTLY? BECAUSE THIS 3D RENDERING IS DONE LOOKING DOWN ON THE PROJECT, WHICH GIVES YOU ZERO REFERENCE AS TO HOW THAT IS GOING TO, UM, IT NEEDS THE 3D RENDERING APPROPRIATELY NEEDS TO BE DONE AT GROUND LEVEL FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.WELL, UM, SO THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD CALL AN, AN ACCIDENT METRIC DRAWING.
SO IT'S A, IT'S A 30 60 SHIFT AND IT'S A, IT'S A PROJECTION ESSENTIALLY TO UNDERSTAND THE MASSING.
SO IT'S NOT A, IT, IT'S NOT A RENDERING OR EVEN A PERSPECTIVE IN, IN THAT, BUT, BUT IT'S MORE OF A, THE TECHNICAL TERM IS AN ACCIDENT METRIC.
UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THESE ARE NOT REQUIRED, BUT THEY ARE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT THERE.
I MEAN, I DON'T WANNA GET OFF AGENDA.
THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD REQUIRE RENDERINGS OR NOT.
AND PART OF THE DISCUSSION IS IT'S ANOTHER FINANCIAL BURDEN TO AN APPLICANT.
AND AGAIN, WE TRY, TRY TO MAKE THIS PROCESS EASY FOR, FOR, FOR FOLKS.
AND SO PROJECTS THAT ARE MORE COMPLICATED GENERALLY HAVE THEM AND SMALLER PROJECTS DON'T HAVE THEM.
UM, BUT THAT'S TO YOUR ANSWER, THAT THAT'S, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IT.
THEY DID REQUIRE THIS FOR OUR BENEFIT TO UNDERSTAND THE MASSING IS, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
SO WITH THAT, I, WE NEED A MOTION TO ADVANCE THIS.
SO LET ME, TWO MORE QUESTIONS.
SO COSGROVE, MR. COSGROVE FIRST.
THE FIVE INCH REVEAL ON THE SIDING, I UNDERSTAND.
WHAT IS THE INTENDED REVEAL ON THE SIDING THAT IS GOING TO BE PUT ON THE ORIGINAL HOUSE AND IT, IT SAYS WOOD SIDING.
IS THAT SALVAGED WOOD SIDING? IS THAT NEW WOOD SIDING? IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE NEW.
UH, ACCORDING TO THE CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH THE, UH, AGENT.
UM, WE DIDN'T DISCUSS THE REVEAL.
UM, SO I, I MEAN, IF WE, I CAN TELL YOU IF WE MAKE A MOTION AND YOU, AND, AND YET THEY ARE ALLOWED TO GET THE SIDING, THEY WILL BE HAPPY TO PUT WHATEVER REVEAL ON THERE THAT YOU PROPOSE.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT DRIVEN BY THE CONTEXT AREA.
I, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I MIGHT HAVE TO DEFER TO, TO THE STAFF TO, TO MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION.
MY OTHER POINT IS, IN THE PROPOSED ELEVATION, THEY SHOW THAT THE STONE IS REMAINING ON THE FRONT PORCH COLUMNS.
IS THAT THEIR INTENTION OR IS THAT JUST A, UM, OVERSIGHT IN THE DRAWING? UM, BECAUSE I WOULD OFFER THIS, THAT THE PORCH COLUMNS WOULD GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO REUSE SOME OF THE STONE AND PAY HOMAGE TO THE STONE AS, AS WOULD THE, THE EXPOSED, UM, PIERS UNDER THE HOUSE.
I MEAN, A LOT OF PEOPLE TRIM THOSE IN BRICK.
AND IN THIS CASE, SINCE THEY HAVE ALL THE STONE, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IF THIS BODY IS INTERESTED, THAT THERE IS A WAY TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THIS STONE INTO THIS DESIGN.
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SAYING THAT EVERYTHING HAS TO MATCH EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW IF IT ALL HAS TO COME OFF.
BUT IT IS JUST A WAY TO LIKE HONOR A LITTLE BIT OF THIS PAST THAT WE ARE UNSURE OF, AS YOU SAID, LIKE, IS IT PART OF THE FABRIC OR NOT? BUT IF WE COULD HONOR IT IN SOME WAY, MAYBE THERE IS A, A COMPROMISE TO BE MADE.
UH, SO WHEN I, WHEN I ASKED THE ARCHITECT TO MAKE THE CHANGES, HE, HE PURPOSELY LEFT THE COLUMNS LIKE THAT.
SO I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT THAT WAS HIS INTENT.
UM, I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE IDEA OF, OF INCORPORATING THE STONE, UM, AS THE FOUNDATION, AS PART OF THE FOUNDATION.
SO, UM, I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT HERE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE, BUT LIKE I SAID, I, I THINK THIS, THIS PROJECT HAS, UM, I MEAN, I THINK IN PRESERVATION TRACK WE'VE SEEN LIKE FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT COAS OF THIS PROJECT AND HOW IT'S COME BACK AND, AND ALL THOSE GOOD THINGS.
SO, UM, I THINK THEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO SO.
UM, BUT IF YOU MAKE THE MOTION AND IF THERE WAS SIGHTING BEFORE THE STONE, IT COULD EVEN STILL EXIST OR A PIECE OF IT MIGHT REMAIN UNDER THE STONE.
COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, YOU HAD A QUESTION? UM, JUST A SMALL POINT.
I, I THINK I, I APPRECIATE THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THE VARIOUS APPLICATIONS AROUND THIS, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE DRAWINGS ON RECORD BE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE.
AND SO, UM, I ALSO WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE STONE, UH, COLUMNS, BUT ALSO ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE 17, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ARROWS WITH
[02:00:01]
NO TEXT NEXT TO THEM.SO, UM, I, I WOULD HOPE THAT MAYBE THOSE NOTES COULD ACTUALLY BE PUT ON THE DRAWING.
SOME OF THEM POINT TO THE SIDING AND MAYBE THEY'RE THE SAME, LIKE AS ON THE PAGE 16, LIKE EXISTING OR PROPOSED CONCRETE FOUNDATION BLOCKS OR, UM, PROPOSED SIDING.
BUT, UM, AND THEN ON PAGE 18, SOME OF THE TEXT IS ALSO CUT OFF.
SO I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE ALL THE DETAILS ON THE DRAWINGS.
I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE MENTIONED LAST TIME TOO.
I MEAN, WE, WE CAN, WE CAN MAKE NOTE OF THAT.
I JUST WANT TO, LIKE, WE'RE TAKING DRAWINGS THAT ARE MEANT FOR A 24 BY 36 SHEET AND PUTTING THEM ON A EIGHT AND A HALF BY 11.
UM, SO I, I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF.
I WON'T SPEAK FOR THE REST OF THE STAFF, BUT YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WHEN I GET ELEVATIONS I DO CUT IT OFF, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ALREADY LISTED IN MY DESCRIPTION ON THE FRONT PAGE.
UM, IF IT'S LISTED IN MY DESCRIPTION ON THE FRONT PAGE, I'LL JUST CLIP IT OFF AND LEAVE THE, I MEAN, 'CAUSE I CAN'T ERASE THE ARROW, UM, GRAPHICALLY IN MICROSOFT WORD.
SO, UM, NOT MAKING EXCUSES HERE, BUT THAT'S THE REASON WHY YOU DON'T SEE SOME OF THOSE ARROWS.
UM, AND TO ANSWER YOUR OTHER QUESTION, THE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK IS NO LONGER THERE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S CLAD AND, UH, STONE OR NOT.
BUT, UM, MENTAL NOTE HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT THE, UM, NOTES.
I GUESS WE COULD SOMEHOW PROVIDE AN OVERALL, AND THEN I COULD BLOW IT, THEN BLOW IT UP AND JUST PROVIDE BOTH.
UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT IT MAY BE SAT MAY, MAYBE THAT WILL SATISFY THE, UH, NEED TO HAVE COMPLETE, HAVE THE DRAWINGS APPEAR TO BE COMPLETE.
MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UM, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE, UH, TO COMMISSIONER BLAKELY'S, UM, POINT, THERE WERE SOME NOTES THAT WERE CUT OFF THAT, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE SHE WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE KNOWN WHAT THEY WERE MIXED WITH THE UNCERTAINTY AROUND THE BUILDER'S INTENT FOR WHAT, OR IF THEY PLANNED TO, TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE STONE MIXED WITH A CONSENSUS.
I'M FEELING AROUND THE TABLE THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL STONE OR SEMI ORIGINAL STONE.
AS A PART OF THIS, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE DEFER TO GIVE STAFF A CHANCE TO FILL IN THOSE NOTES AND THEN TO GIVE THE BUILDER AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TO US AND BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THEIR INTENT FOR THE USE OF STONE IS.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'D LIKE TO COMMENT PLEASE.
UM, I WOULD ASK THAT THAT THE PLANS MOVING FORWARD INCLUDE, UH, SOMETHING, SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE, THE TRIM OUT AROUND THE WINDOWS AND THE DOORS ON THE ORIGINAL HOUSE MATCH THE CONTEXT AREA THAT THEY HAVE WOOD TRIM AND THEY'RE BOXED OUT AS IF THEY WERE WEIGHT DRIVEN WINDOWS AS THEY WERE, RIGHT? YES.
BUT IS THAT A SECOND? THAT IS A SECOND.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? AND JUST A COMMENT, UM, WHILE I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CROSS GROVE AND COMMISSIONER BROUGHT BACK ABOUT THE AESTHETIC NATURE OF THE STONE, IT SEEMS AS IF BASED UPON MS, UH, COMMISSIONER BERNIE'S, UH, COMMENTS THAT WE DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE STONE EXISTED AT THE TIME, AND, AND IT IS OUT OF CONTEXT IN THAT AREA, ARE WE OVERSTEPPING OUR ROLE AND INTERFERING WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS BY, UH, PROPOSING A MOTION WHICH REQUIRES THE USE OF STONE, WHICH WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME IT WAS CONSTRUCTED? I THINK IT'S A CONSENSUS OF THIS BODY TO DETERMINE WHAT'S APPROPRIATE.
I MEAN, I THINK WE, AS YOU POINTED OUT, HAVE HEARD, UM, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING GOING INTO THIS MEETING THAT THE STONE WAS NOT BELIEVED TO BE ORIGINAL, UM, HAS CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
AND I HAVE HEARD EVIDENCE TODAY, UH, BOLSTERING THAT WITH NUMBERS AND ALSO, UH, JUSTIFYING WHEN THE, THE CHA THE CHANGE ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
SO I THINK WE HAVE LEARNED LIKELY OCCURRED IN 1927, BUT TO YOUR POINT, IT'S NOT ORIGINAL.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE STONE NEEDS TO COME OFF TO FIX THE, FIX THIS, THIS PROBLEM ITSELF.
UM, BUT AGAIN, BUT I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, SO I I'M REQUIRED TO HAVE A VOTE ON THAT.
UM, CAN I COMMENT ON MY SECOND QUESTION? LET'S JUST GO IN ORDER.
SO COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? QUESTION, WHAT IS THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE HEIGHTS TERRANCE? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR THIS PORTION OF THE HEIGHTS? WHAT IS THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE? IT GOES TO 19, LIKE 40 SOMETHING,
[02:05:01]
42 OR 44.I HAVE BEEN, UH, TOLD THAT THE END IS 1940.
NOW WAS THERE ANOTHER COMMENT? I MEAN, IF THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE IS THAT LATE, THEN WE MAYBE SHOULD COUNT THE STONE AS MA SORT OF MATERIAL TO WHAT THIS HOUSE SHOULD BE LIKE.
RIGHT? OR IF IT WAS LATER, IF IT WAS EARLIER, I GUESS WE WOULD COUNT NO STONE AS THE CONTRIBUTING CON CONDITION OF THIS HOUSE.
SO JUST WANNA PUT THAT OUT THERE.
I THINK ONE, ONE COULD ONE COULD MAKE THAT, WHICH WAS PART OF, UH, MR. BECK'S QUESTION EARLIER.
UM, MY, I JUST WANNA PREFACE THAT, THAT IT WOULD LARGELY DEPEND ON HOW THAT STONE WAS ALSO INSTALLED.
SO IF IT WAS INSTALLED IN SUCH A WAY WITHOUT A PROPER FOUNDATION OR SUCH A WAY THAT CAUSED THE STRUCTURE TO FALL APART, THEN THAT COULD BE AN ADVERSE THAT COULD BE ADVERSE TO THIS, TO THE ACTUAL REMAINING HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
SO, UM, THAT'S WHERE EACH OF THESE IS SUBJECTIVE TO EACH OF THESE DIFFERENT CASES.
AND IT'S UNCLEAR, THE CONDITION I'VE JUST BEEN DESCRIBED TO ME IS HOW MUCH IT'S BEEN ROTTING AND HOW THEY NEED TO REMOVE THE STONE TO PUT IT BACK.
BUT, UM, I MEAN, YOU ALL COULD ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT STONE IS LIKE.
BUT I I, I NEED A CALL FOR, I DO ONCE DISCUSSION'S OVER, I DO NEED A CALL FOR THE VOTE SO THAT, THAT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER DAVIS, YOU YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR, OKAY.
UM, BECAUSE ONCE THEY TAKE THIS STONE OFF THIS HOUSE, THE ROOF MAY BE THE ONLY THING THAT'S MAKING THIS HOUSE NOT FALL DOWN.
SO WHEN THEY RE REMOVE THAT STONE, THAT MAY INDEED HAPPEN.
AND SO THE QUESTION IS, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT BASED ON THAT.
SO, WELL, MY, MY EXPERIENCE IS IF YOU HAVE A GOOD CONTRACTOR, THEY WILL REQUIRE SHORING LIKELY.
AND, UM, IF YOU HAVE EFFECTIVE SHORING, THEN IT WILL NOT FALL DOWN.
BUT THERE MAY BE A LOT OF RECONSTRUCTION AT, TO YOUR POINT, UM, RIGHT.
BUT THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH THESE HOUSES WHEN I'M DRIVING AROUND IN THE HEIGHTS AND I SEE ALL YOU, ALL YOU HAVE ARE FOUR CORNERS AND NOTHING ELSE IS THERE.
THEN I HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT WAS THE POINT? JUST A OBSERVATION, MR. CHAIR, UM, POINT OF DISCUSSION.
UM, YES TO COMMISSIONER, UH, BLAKELY'S POINT FROM A MOMENT AGO, I DID CONSIDER MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION OF, UH, REMOVING AND REUSING ALL OF THE STONE.
BUT THEN I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT NOT BE SUCH A COOL THING TO DO TO THE BUILDER AND THE OWNER BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN DO THAT.
WHAT WE DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW IS WHAT THE BUILDER PLANS TO DO WITH THE ROCKS.
AND I THINK KNOWING THAT WOULD HELP US MOVE THIS ONE FORWARD, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER DAVIS, YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT'S A, IT'S AN A REALLY COOL HOUSE AND TO KNOW THAT THAT ROCK HAS BEEN THERE FOR AT LEAST 99 YEARS, UM, I THINK WE SHOULD THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE WE JUST SAY, YEAH, YOU CAN GET RID OF IT.
YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? YEAH, I HAVE A MOTION.
CAN YOU RESTATE THE MOTION? I, WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER MARCO, YOU RESTATE YOUR MOTION.
MOTION TO DEFER THE APPLICATION, UH, TO GIVE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, PUT THE ADDITIONAL DETAIL BACK INTO THE APPLICATION PACKET AND TO GIVE THE BUILDER AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE US THEIR PLANS FOR THE STONE.
AND THERE WAS A, THE SECOND HAD A CAVEAT TO ADD MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRIMMING OUT THE HISTORIC WINDOW OPENINGS WITH PROPER WOOD TRIM, WHICH WAS NOT EVIDENT IN THE DRAWING.
YOU, YOU, YOU AGREED TO THAT YES.
ALL OPPOSED? OKAY, SO BROWNING OPPOSES THAT MOTION PASSES AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEMS 11 AND 12.
SO, UM, ITEMS 11 AND 12 ARE, UH, DEFERRED BY STAFF.
UH, HOWEVER WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS HERE.
UM, I, I HAVE A SCRIPT PREPARED FOR THE PRESENTATION OF THE ACTUAL PROJECT, BUT BECAUSE IT DEFERRED, I THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT I GIVE YOU GUYS THE INFORMATION THAT THE SPEAKERS ARE GOING TO BE, UM, REFERENCING.
UM, SO 2 0 2 EAST, 31ST AND A HALF, UM, IS A WELL, WAS A CONTRIBUTING HOME IN STARK
[02:10:01]
WEATHER.UM, IN OCTOBER OF 2025, UM, STAFF RECEIVED A CALL THAT A, UM, THAT THIS HOME HAD BEEN DEMOLISHED.
UH, AFTER INVESTIGATING AND SPEAKING WITH, UH, UM, ONE OF THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE CLOSE, UM, STAFF DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND DID THEIR RESEARCH.
AND WHAT WE FOUND OUT WAS THAT, UM, WHEN THIS, WHEN THE STARK WEATHER DISTRICT WAS CREATED, UM, THERE WERE ABOUT THREE HOUSES THAT DID NOT GET THE HISTORIC HOLDS PLACED ON THEM.
UM, AND, UH, 2 0 2 EAST, 31ST AND A HALF WAS ONE OF THOSE HOMES.
UM, STAFF HAS SINCE THEN GONE IN AND PUT THE PROPER HISTORIC HOLDS ON ALL THE PROPERTIES, WHICH IS WHY THIS PROJECT IS BEFORE YOU NOW, UH, BECAUSE WHEN THE, UH, OWNERS AND AGENT SUBMITTED THE PROJECT TO PERMITTING THE HISTORIC HOLD WAS THEN TRIGGERED BECAUSE IT WAS THERE NOW AND THEY SENT THEIR PLANS TO US.
UM, THEY DEFERRED THE APPLICATION LAST MONTH.
AND SO HERE WE ARE NOW, UM, THE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT, WHICH YOU WILL SEE NEXT MONTH.
UM, BUT, UH, STAFF HAS DEFERRED THE APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEMO APPLICATION AND WE CANNOT APPROVE A NEW CONSTRUCTION BEFORE A DEMO APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED AND OR APPROVED.
UH, SO THEREFORE, UM, WE ARE HERE AND I WILL, IF YOU WOULD, I MEAN IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
BUT WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING AND, UH, I THINK, UH, WE SHOULD LET THEM SPEAK AND, UH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT MY PRETTY FACE ANY LONGER.
IF I MAY, I WILL, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
SORRY, UM, JUST TO GET SOME MORE CONTEXT, 'CAUSE I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH TERRANCE ON THIS ONE.
UM, SO THERE WAS NO COA FOR THE DEMOLITION, SO THAT OCCURRED WITHOUT A COA.
THE CODE KIND OF SPLITS OR THE ORDINANCE SPLITS ON HOW YOU TREAT A DEMOLITION THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT A COA SO YOU CAN READ IT STRICTLY.
UH, PART OF THE CODE OR THE ORDINANCE SAYS IF A DEMOLITION OCCURRED WITHOUT A COA, YOU CAN'T, NO ONE CAN ISSUE A PERMIT FOR THAT LOCATION FOR TWO YEARS.
AND EVEN IN THAT, AFTER THAT TWO YEARS, UM, IT HAS TO BE THE SAME SIZE, AROUND THE SAME, SIMILAR SIZE.
THEN AFTER 10 YEARS, UM, THAT SIZE LIMITATION IS REMOVED FURTHER DOWN IN THE CODE.
SAME SECTION, OR, SORRY, KEEP SAYING TO ME, IT'S THE CODE, IT'S THE ORDINANCE.
UM, THERE'S A SORT OF CONT THERE'S A PROVISION THAT TALKS ABOUT WHAT CAN BE DONE, UH, FOR WORK THAT WAS DONE OUTSIDE OF A COA OR WITHOUT A COA.
UM, I THINK THAT THAT PART OF THE CODE WAS WRITTEN MORE TO ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE DID THEIR ADDITION, BUT THEY PUT IN VINYL WINDOWS.
SO THIS, THE COMMISSION WOULD GO IN AND, AND, UH, ISSUE A COR FOR THOSE PEOPLE TO GO IN AND CONTINUE TO DO THE WORK TO, TO REMEDIATE, OR THEY WOULD CHANGE THE, THE VINYL WINDOWS TO WHAT THE COMMISSION ALLOWS.
THE, BUT THIS PORTION OF THE CODE ALSO SAYS, YOU KNOW, THIS, THE COR THAT THE COMMISSION CAN ISSUE EXTENDS TO WORK THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT A COA, THIS DEMOLITION IS WORK THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT A COA.
SO IT'S KIND OF UNCLEAR AS TO HOW MUCH THE, THE COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, CAN THE COMMISSION ISSUE A COR FOR THE DEMOLITION AND THEN A COR FOR, UH, CONSTRUCTION? OR IS IT, OR ARE THEY LIMITED TO JUST THE RECONSTRUCTION? CAN IT ONLY BE, UH, CAN WHAT WAS DEMOLISHED BE THE ONLY THING THAT'S BUILT? OR CAN SOMETHING NEW BE BUILT THERE? SO IT, IT'S KIND OF UNCLEAR.
I THINK THAT IT, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WARRANTS DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COMMISSION JUST BECAUSE THIS IS KIND OF A, A STRANGE SCENARIO AS TO, UM, THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT BACKGROUND CONTEXT AND WHAT I'VE BEEN READING FOR THE CODE THERE.
[02:15:01]
I'M HAPPY TO TALK MORE ABOUT THAT AS WE GO ALONG.I THINK WE WILL HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, UM, FROM, FROM THE COMMISSION MEMBERS.
UM, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO, BECAUSE I DO HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP.
SO AT THIS TIME, I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, THE FIRST SPEAKER IS, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S DR.
SABRINA NOREEN, AND I MAY BE NORMAN.
AND IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME IN THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD.
SABRINA NORMAN, AND I AM AN ORIGINAL OWNER OF A HOUSE ON STARK WEATHER WHERE THIS OCCURRED.
MY ADDRESS IS ONE 14 EAST 31ST AND HALF STREET.
AND MY, UM, HOUSE IS 82 YEARS OLD.
I AM THE YOUNGEST ON THE STREET, AND I'M 70.
SO I'M HERE SPEAKING FOR EVERYONE ELSE WHO COULD NOT ATTEND BECAUSE OF THE MOBILITY AND AGES, WE ARE ENRAGED.
WHY IS BECAUSE THE CITY OF HOUSTON ILLEGALLY DEMOLISHED THAT HOUSE.
I WAS ON THE ORIGINAL COMMITTEE WITH TANYA DEBO, AND SO THE HOUSE HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED ILLEGALLY.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THAT NO CONSTRUCTION BE COMPLETED ON THAT HOUSE UNTIL THE CITY OF HOUSTON COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND EXPLAIN THIS TRANSGRESSION TO US.
NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT, ONLY ME BECAUSE I LIVED ON THE STREET AND I COULDN'T BELIEVE WHAT I WAS SEEING.
WE'RE ALSO ASKING THAT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION FOR US, IT'S TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ADHERES STRICTLY TO THE PRESCRIBED GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN THAT PRESERVATION MANUAL THAT WAS COPYRIGHT IN 2013.
WE ARE DEPENDING ON YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL RULES ARE ADHERED TO.
THE CITY OF HOUSTON HAS NOT COME TO TALK TO US, AND I'M HOLDING IT TOGETHER AND I'M HOLDING THE GANG TOGETHER BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T COME BEFORE US AND EXPLAIN THIS TRANSGRESSION, I'M SORRY.
ALL MAYHEM IS GOING TO FALL OFF.
WE DID NOT HAVE THE PUBLIC MEDIA WITH US TODAY.
WE DID NOT WANT THEM HERE TO US TODAY, AND WE CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO BE IN ANY LEGAL ENTANGLEMENTS.
THE NEXT SPEAKER SIGNED UP IS TANYA WELLS.
I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INDEPENDENT HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL.
I'M HERE TODAY TO FORMALLY OBJECT TO ANY PROPOSAL TO REDEVELOP ANY PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 0 2 EAST 31ST AND A HALF STREET FOLLOWING THE UNLAWFUL DEMOLITION OF THE HISTORIC HOME THAT ONCE STOOD ON THIS SITE.
THIS MATTER REPRESENTS NOT ONLY THE LOSS OF A HISTORIC STRUCTURE, BUT ALSO A FAILURE OF OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND PROTECTION BY THE CITY OF HOUSTON.
THE COMMUNITY TRUSTED THAT HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES WOULD BE SAFEGUARDED THROUGH THE CITY'S PRESERVATION PROCESSES.
THE DEMOLITION OF THIS HOME PERMANENTLY ERASED AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S ARCHITECTURAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY.
YET EVEN MORE TROUBLING IS THAT THE CITY FAILED TO OPENLY COMMUNICATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS DEMOLITION TO THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY.
RESIDENTS WERE LEFT WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY, WITHOUT TIMELY INFORMATION, AND WITHOUT MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT REGARDING THE LOSS OF A STRUCTURE THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE HISTORICAL IDENTITY OF THE AREA.
ADDITIONALLY, THE CITY FAILED TO HONOR PRIOR COMMITMENTS WITH THE INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ON MATTERS IMPACTING THE HISTORIC INDEPENDENT HEIGHTS COMMUNITY.
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WERE PREVIOUSLY ASSURED THAT ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS IHRC WILL BE INCLUDED IN DISCUSSIONS AND DECISION MAKING PROCESSES REGARDING PRESERVATION,
[02:20:01]
REDEVELOPMENT, AND MATTERS AFFECTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.HOWEVER, THE CITY NOW CONVENIENTLY CLAIMS TO HAVE NO RECORD OF SUCH COMMITMENTS OR AGREEMENTS.
THIS PATTERN DISREGARD RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE CITY'S INTENTIONS, AND ITS CONTINUED FAILURE TO PROTECT THE INDEPENDENT HEIGHTS COMMUNITY FROM DISPLACEMENT, ERASURE, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF ITS HISTORICAL IDENTITY TO MANY RESIDENTS.
THESE ACTIONS, UH, REFLECT OUR PATTERN.
MOTION TO EXTEND SPEAKER'S TIME BY ONE MINUTE.
IS THERE A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR.
PLEASE PROCEED TO MANY RESIDENTS.
THESE ACTIONS REFLECT OUR BROADER PATTERN IN WHICH THE COMMUNITY'S CONCERNS.
HISTORY AND PRESERVATION EFFORTS ARE SYSTEMICALLY IGNORED IN FAVOR OF REDEVELOPMENT THAT DIMINISHES THE CULTURAL LEGACY OF INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS, THE FIRST BLACK TOWN IN TEXAS.
THE CITY MUST NOT NOW ALLOW THAT FAILURE TO BE REWARDED THROUGH APPROVAL OF INCOMPATIBLE REDEVELOPMENT.
I WANT TO CLEARLY STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT NO PLAN SHOULD BE APPROVED FOR THIS PROPERTY UNLESS THE REPLACEMENT HOME IS BUILT IN THE IMAGE OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND INCLUDING COMPATIBLE ARCHITECTURE, CHARACTER, SCALE, APPEARANCE, AND HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE.
ANYTHING LESS WOULD ESTABLISH A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT HISTORIC HOMES CAN BE DEMOLISHED, UNLAWFULLY, AND REPLACED WITH ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT MEANINGFUL CON CONSEQUENCES OR RESTORATIVE ACTION.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.
I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
THEN I'LL ASK COMMISSION MEMBERS IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF TERRANCE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THIS, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEFERRED, BUT I THINK THERE'LL STILL BE MORE QUESTIONS.
UM, POTENTIALLY AB ABSOLUTELY.
UM, SO I'M GUESSING THAT THIS INCIDENT WHEN THERE WAS A FAILURE TO FLAG A COUPLE OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE STARK WEATHER DISTRICT HAPPENED A LONG TIME AGO AND MAYBE BEFORE YOU WERE YES, SIR.
THAT YES, THAT HAPPENED WELL BEFORE ANYONE YOU SEE, UH, ON STAFF.
UH, COULD BE THE DISTRICT WAS CREATED ON OR WAS A PASSED BY, UH, CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 26TH, 2014.
AND SO BASICALLY WITHIN THIS AREA, THERE WERE A FEW PROPERTIES THAT WERE JUST NOT RECORDED AS BEING IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
ACCORDING TO IN DOING MY RESEARCH, WHEN I WENT INTO OUR CITY SYSTEM, ILMS, UM, I WENT ADDRESS BY ADDRESS TO SEE IF THERE WAS A HISTORIC HOLD BECAUSE I WAS, UH, UH, AFTER SPEAKING WITH DR. NORMAN, UM, I WAS REALLY CONCERNED ON HOW IT HAPPENED.
SO, UH, IT TOOK A LITTLE WHILE, BUT ONCE I WENT INTO ILMS AND STARTED LOOKING ADDRESS BY ADDRESS, THAT'S WHEN I RECOGNIZED, OKAY, THERE'S NO HOLD ON THIS PROPERTY, WHICH LED, WHICH IS, WHICH WAS 2 0 2 EAST 31ST, WHICH LED ME DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE TO CHECK ALL THE REST OF THEM.
UM, UPON DOING SO, I FOUND THAT THERE WERE TWO ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES TO THE 2 0 2 EAST 31ST STREET.
SO I WENT IN AND PLACED THE HOLDS ON ALL THREE PROPERTIES THAT DID NOT HAVE THE HISTORIC HOLDS.
SO WHEN YOU SAY HOLD, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO ALL THE OTHER HOUSES IN ALL THE OTHER 15, 14 OTHER HISTORIC DISTRICTS? YES, MA'AM.
SO HOW, UH, JUST FOR, JUST TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU GUYS, WHEN A HISTORIC DISTRICT IS CREATED OR A LANDMARK IS APPROVED BY YOU GUYS, OR A PROTECTED LANDMARK IS APPROVED BY YOU GUYS, ONE OF THE FIRST ACTIONS THAT WE HAVE ONCE APPROVED IS TO GO INTO OUR ILMS SYSTEM AND PUT WHAT WE CALL A ONE TWENTY SIX CITUS HOLD ON THAT.
AND THAT CITUS HOLD IS A HISTORIC HOLD, WHICH REMAINS ON THE PROJECT FOR THE DURATION OF THE TIME OF THE HOME OR THE OF THE HOME.
SO IF SOMEONE WERE TO GET A PLUMBING PERMIT, HISTORIC HOLD WOULD POP UP.
THEY'D HAVE TO CALL US IN ORDER TO RELEASE THE HOLD.
IF THEY DID AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT, THEY'D HAVE TO CALL US FOR US TO RELEASE THE HOLD AND THEN THEY COULD MOVE FORWARD.
SAME GOES FOR A ALTERATION ADDITION.
SO OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THAT THESE, BECAUSE THESE THREE PROPERTIES, BUT WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT 2 0 2 IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE THERE WAS NO HOLD WHEN THEY WENT TO GET THEIR DEMOLITION PERMIT, UH, PERMITTING RELEASED IT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SEE A, A HISTORIC HOLD ON THERE.
IT WOULD'VE SAID, UH, DO NOT RELEASE HOLD STARK WEATHER HISTORIC DISTRICT WOULD'VE BEEN THE NOTE.
AND THEN THEY WOULD'VE CONTACTED, WELL, THEY WOULD'VE CONTACTED THE OWNERS FIRST AND SAID, HEY, YOU'RE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DEMOLISH THIS HOME.
YOU NEED TO SPEAK WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE.
AND AGAIN, BECAUSE THAT HOLE WAS NOT THERE, THAT
[02:25:01]
DID NOT OCCUR.SO, BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND THAT'S WHY YOU CAN'T ISSUE A COR FOR IT? NO, NO.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE A DEMOLITION COA.
BUT THEY GOT A DEMOLITION PERMIT, CORRECT.
AND I THINK THAT SHOULD EXPLAIN THE FRUSTRATION FROM THE RESIDENTS OF STOCK WEATHER AND INDEPENDENCE HEIGHT, BECAUSE THE, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW, IF I COULD SAY THIS, BUT THE CITY IS PARTIALLY AT FAULT AS WELL.
UM, COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AROUND, UM, OWNERSHIP.
IS THERE ANY COMMONALITY BETWEEN THE THREE PROPERTIES THAT DON'T HAVE HOLDS ON THEM AS FAR AS OWNERSHIP? THERE WAS, I MEAN, I WISH I COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION MM-HMM
BUT OBVIOUSLY MY BIGGEST CONCERN WAS THE FACT THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE HOLDS MM-HMM
SO ONCE I PLACED A HOLD ON IT, I MEAN, I, I MEAN, I DIDN'T GO IN AND LOOK AND SEE WHO WAS THE OWNER OR CHECK HCA RECORDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I, MY BIGGEST CONCERN WAS MAKING SURE THAT THE HISTORICAL HOLD WAS PLACED ON HIM, BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IF THIS PERSON HAD PURCHASED MORE PROPERTIES OR WHAT THE CASE MAY HAVE BEEN.
ANOTHER QUESTION, AND I HAVE LIKE A COUPLE AND THEY'RE ALL CONNECTED, BUT, UM, SO THERE YOU SAID THAT THERE'S, IT'S DEFERRED, THEY'RE COMING BACK WITH A COMPLETELY NEW PROPOSED PLAN.
IS THAT WHAT I DID? I HEAR THAT ACCURATELY.
SO, UM, WELL, YES, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT FOR CONSIDERATION IN, IN THIS, BUT THERE IS SOME, THERE IS AN OWNER WHO'S PLANNING TO COME AND PROPOSE A, A NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AND IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THEY'RE PROPOSING IS IN THE REPORT.
UM, HOWEVER, UH, SO THEY CAME LAST MONTH WITH PROPOSING TO PUT TWO VERY LONG, VERY TWO STRUCTURES THAT DID NOT FIT THE DISTRICT.
UM, I SPOKE WITH THEM, I, I LET THEM KNOW, HEY, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
JUST BASICALLY GAVE THEM THE INFORMATION AND, AND, AND I WAS FORTHRIGHT WITH THEM, LIKE, HEY, I DON'T KNOW IF THE COMMISSION WOULD APPROVE THIS BECAUSE THIS NOT, IT DOES NOT FIT THE DISTRICT.
IT MAINLY, UH, THEY WERE REFERENCING NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES IN THE DISTRICT.
AND I EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT THEY CAN'T, THEY DON'T, THEY CAN'T DO THAT.
THEY NEED TO REFERENCE THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.
SO THEY SUBMITTED THIS APPLICATION AND UPON DISCUSSION WITH, UH, STAFF, UH, AND WE, WE TALKED TO COMMISSIONER COSGROVE AND COMMISSIONER HICK, AND THEN WE SPOKE WITH, UH, MATTHEW, OBVIOUSLY WITH LEGAL.
AND, UM, THE CONVERSATION, WELL, THE CONVERSATION QUICKLY CHANGED FROM A APPLICATION OF A NEW CONSTRUCTION TO, HEY, WE HAVEN'T APPROVED A DEMOLITION, SO WE NEED TO APPROVE A DEMOLITION.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A DEFERRAL RIGHT NOW IS BECAUSE THERE NEEDS TO BE A DEMOLITION APPLICATION APPROVED.
UM, I HAVE REACHED OUT, UH, I BELIEVE MATTHEW HAS ALSO REACHED OUT WITH THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE A DEMOLITION COA REQUIRES AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION.
I HAVE GIVEN THEM THAT INFORMATION.
I HAVE, UH, EMAILED THAT INFORMATION, BUT I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE.
UM, SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW.
UM, HOPEFULLY, UM, AFTER COMMISSION IS OVER AND WE GET GOING NEXT WEEK OR WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK AND A HALF OR SO, I WILL BE ABLE TO GET IN CONTACT WITH THEM AND EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT THEY NEED TO DO AS FAR AS THE DEMOLITION COR IS CONCERNED, AND THEY WILL START WORKING ON THAT.
AND WE WILL HAVE A DEMOLITION COR TO PUT ON FRONT OF YOU NEXT MONTH.
UM, ONE, ONE LAST COMMENT, UM, FOR LEGAL, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE I HEARD WHAT YOU STATED AS FAR AS THE NUANCE BETWEEN THE OPTIONS OF HOW ONE MOVES FORWARD, THERE'S, THERE'S LATITUDE FOR US TO, ONCE THIS IS PRESENTED, IF IT WERE NOT TO REFLECT, CONTRIBUTING, YOU KNOW, UM, OTHER THINGS IN THE CONTRIBUTING AREA, UM, IN THE CONTEXT AREA, THEN YOU COULD SAY THAT THERE WILL BE NO CONSTRUCTION APPROVED FOR TWO YEARS AND THEN THAT THERE WEREN'T CHANGES FOR 10 AFTER THAT TWO YEAR.
IS IS, I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID PROPERLY YEAH.
FOR WHEN IT COMES BACK, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT IT.
AND ALSO IN CASE BE HAPPY TO REPEAT IT IN CASE, IN CASE THE APPLICANT IS VIEWING THIS SO THAT THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW SURE.
NOT ADDRESS THIS BEFORE THEY COME BACK.
SO THAT, THAT TWO YEAR AND THAT 10 YEAR PERIOD THAT IS FOR THAT, THAT'S FOR DEMOLITIONS OR YEAH, DEMOLITIONS THAT ARE CONDUCTED WITHOUT A COA.
UM, SO AS SAYS AFTER THE PERIOD OF THAT TWO YEARS, THE HAC MAY APPROVE A COA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY AT THE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR THAN THE DEMOLISHED STRUCTURE.
[02:30:01]
MM-HMMUM, SO, BUT AFTER 10 YEARS THAT SUBSTANTIALLY THAT SIZE LIMITATION DOESN'T APPLY MM-HMM
UM, BUT IT'S STILL, THE HAHC IS MM-HMM
UH, ISSUING A COA FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
WHAT, WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS WILL HAPPEN NEXT OR CAN HAPPEN NEXT, IS THAT THIS APPLICANT CAN COME TO US AND ASK FOR A COR FOR THE DEMOLITION.
SO THE HHC WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER, UM, COULD THIS STRUCTURE HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED? UM, SO THEY'LL GO THROUGH ALL THE CRITERIA IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SUPPORTS, UH, OR DENY, YOU KNOW, IT'S WHATEVER, UM, THE CRITERIA IS FOR DEMOLITION.
SO THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE WHAT THE HHC COM, UH, CONSIDERS FIRST, IF THEY FIND THAT YES, THIS MET THE CONDITIONS FOR, UH, DEMOLITION, THEN, THEN THE QUESTION, IT THEN BECOMES, WHAT, WHAT DID THIS, THE COR FOR ANY SORT OF CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION LOOK LIKE? WHETHER THAT EXTENDS ONLY TO WHAT WAS DEMOLISHED.
LIKE THEY CAN ONLY CONS RECONSTRUCT WHAT WAS DEMOLISHED.
OR CAN THEY ONLY OR CAN THEY RECONSTRUCT PAST THAT? UM, AND THAT'S SUBJECTIVE FOR US TO DECIDE.
IS THAT, AM I, I'M ASKING IF IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I'M, I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY MM-HMM
SO THAT WHEN IT COMES BACK, IS IT SUBJECTIVE OR YOU KNOW, IS IT DOCUMENTED? YEAH, I MEAN IT'S, SO THIS COR PROCESS, UM, I THINK IS MORE MEANT FOR THESE SMALLER THINGS OF LIKE, OR I DON'T KNOW THIS FOR SURE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE IS THAT YOU, THE HAC WOULD ISSUE A COR FOR, UM, WORK THAT SOMEONE DID THAT WASN'T UP TO SNUFF OR WASN'T UP TO WHAT, UM, THE H-O-H-H-H-C HAD PREVIOUSLY SAID AN APPLICANT COULD DO.
WHETHER THAT EXTENDS TO A DEMO DEMOLITION, BECAUSE I, THAT, THAT'S UNSURE BECAUSE I'M UNSURE ABOUT, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SORT OF FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, SORT OF STRANGE FOR ME IN MY MIND, TO NOT HAVE SOME SORT OF MECHANISM BY WHICH THE COMMISSION COULD BUILD BACK WHAT WAS UNLAWFULLY DEMOLISHED.
UM, AND SO I DO THAT, THAT'S HOW I'M SORT OF INTERPRETING THE COR PROCESS OF LIKE, OKAY, YOU CAN BUILD BACK, YOU CAN RECONSTRUCT, UM, WHAT WAS DEMOLISHED, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT STOPS.
SO THAT'S THE QUESTION WHERE DOES IT STOP? BUT IF I MAY, IF I, AND I, I THINK THERE ARE MORE QUESTIONS.
SO THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.
UM, AND WE'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION FOR A LONG TIME, AT LEAST, UM, MY, MY VICE CHAIR, UM, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS DESIGNATED HISTORIC AND SHOWN ON THE MAP AS HISTORIC.
SO IT WASN'T LIKE A NOT KNOWN, YEAH, IT WAS NOT A SECRET.
I MEAN, YOU COULD GO TO THE STARK WEATHER PRESERVATION MANUAL, UM, THE, THE WEBSITE THAT HOP HAS, AND YOU COULD SEE 2 0 2 EAST 31ST HALF STREET IS CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.
SO THAT IS KIND OF A QUESTION OF DID THE OWNERS DO THEIR, OR WHOEVER DEMOLISHED, DID THEY DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE? RIGHT.
RIGHT? BUT, BUT LEGALLY IT WAS, IT WAS A CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
IT WAS DULY, UM, NOTED IN THOSE WAYS.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE COMMISSION, AS YOU SAID, IF SOMEONE AT ANY TIME BROUGHT FORTH AN APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS BODY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY MEET THEIR, THE REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW FOR A DEMOLITION.
IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO DETERMINE THAT A PROJECT CAN BE DEMOLISHED, IT SEEMS TO ME WE CAN ALSO DETERMINE THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THAT REQUIREMENT AND THEREFORE YES.
THAT WE MIGHT NOT APPROVE OF SUCH DEMOLITION, EVEN IF IT'S ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.
WE, WE, THAT IS WITHIN OUR, THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION.
AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, WHETHER OR NOT THEY RECEIVED A PERMIT AS A TECHNICALITY BECAUSE OF A HOLE THAT WASN'T IN PLACE, THEN, THEN WE'RE BACK TO THE CLAUSE OF WHAT IS A DEMOLITION, THEN IT'S STILL A DEMOLITION.
IF LET THIS WHEN, AND I'M TALKING HYPOTHETICAL AT THIS POINT MM-HMM
BECAUSE NO VOTE HAS, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE INFORMATION.
WE HAVEN'T, WE'RE WAITING FOR INFORMATION AND NO DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE.
BUT IF WE WERE TO, TO NOT ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION, THEN IT APPEARS TO US THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT A DEMOLITION, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS A, IT OCCURRED BECAUSE OF A TECHNICALITY, AND THEN WE'RE BOUND BY THE RULES OF WHAT A DEMOLITION IS.
'CAUSE THAT IS DEFINED IN, IN OUR ORDINANCE.
IT, THAT'S MY QUESTION, IS YOUR, YOUR QUESTION IS IF, IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT IT IS LEGAL DEMOLITION,
[02:35:02]
NOT A SANCTIONED DEMOLITION LIKE THAT, IF, IF THE COMMISSION DOESN'T, I, I THINK YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE COMMISSION, IF WHEN, WHEN THE C WHEN THE APPLICANT BRINGS A COR FOR THE DEMOLITION AND THE COMMISSION FINDS NO, THE CRITERIA WAS NOT MET FOR A DEMOLITION, THEN I THINK THAT'S WHERE IT STOPS.THEY, THEY CANNOT BUILD ANYTHING OR THEY CAN'T EVEN COME TO THE COMMISSION FOR A COA.
MAYBE THEY COULD, BUT THE COMMISSION CAN'T ISSUE AND SO BE WAS OF THEIR TIME.
UM, THEY HAVE THAT TWO YEAR LIMITATION ON THEM 10 YEARS IF IT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WANNA WAIT.
UM, THERE ARE LIKE CIVIL REMEDIES THAT'S KIND OF OUTSIDE OF THE, WHAT THE COMMISSION DOES.
BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, WE'D HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, BUT IF THE COMMISSION FINDS NO, THE CRITERIA FOR A DEMOLITION WAS NOT MET OR DIDN'T EXIST, UM, THEN THERE'S NO SORT OF, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A, UH, WAIT, LEMME SEE HERE.
THE QUESTION IS, YEAH, CAN THEY BUILD BACK TO MATCH WHAT WAS THERE OR CAN THERE BE NO CONSTRUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE THERE WAS A DEMOLITION? YEAH, THAT, THAT, I THINK THAT'S THE, YEAH, SO THAT'S PART, SO THE, THE CODE HAS TWO PARTS IN THAT COR PROCESS.
SO YOU CAN, THE COMMISSION CAN EITHER ISSUE A COA, UM, WHICH MEANS IT, IT FOUND THAT THE CRITERIA WAS MET, OR THEY CAN, IF THE CRITERIA WASN'T MET, THEY CAN ISSUE A COR.
UM, AND, AND AS A CONDITION FOR THAT ISSUING THAT COR, THEY CAN SAY YOU NEED TO REPAIR, RECONSTRUCT, OR RESTORE THE UNLAWFUL DEMOLITION.
SO WHAT THAT RE RESTORE OR THAT REPAIR, RECONSTRUCT, RESTORE, UM, THE EXTENT OF THAT IS NOT CLEAR IN THE CODE.
SO, UM, THE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSION IS BOUND TO ISSUE THAT COR EVEN IF THE CRITERIA ISN'T, UM, ISN'T MET.
BUT THE LEVEL OF WHICH, YOU KNOW, AN APPLICANT CAN PRESENT PLANS AND SAY, I WANT TO BUILD THIS THING THAT DOESN'T RESEMBLE WHAT I DEMOLISHED.
BUT, BUT IF IT'S A DEMOLITION, MY QUESTION WAS SIMPLY THIS, UH, CAN THEY BILL BACK ANYTHING IF IT'S A DEMOLITION, THIS IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL, HYPOTHETICAL AT THIS MOMENT, BUT MM-HMM
IF WE REACH THAT POINT, OR ARE THEY BASED ON THAT LANGUAGE? COULD THEY GET, UH, APPROVAL TO BILL BACK TO MATCH WHAT IT WAS THAT WAS TO TORN DOWN, BUT NO, NO LARGER AND TO ACTUALLY REPLICATE THAT LARGELY, YOU KNOW, REPLICATE THAT PORTION? YES.
THE, THE COMMISSION COULD ISSUE A COR FOR THEM TO RECONSTRUCT, UM, BUT I THINK IT'D BE LI I'M GUESSING IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO WHAT WAS DEMOLISHED.
SO YOU HAVE KIND OF TWO PATHS.
YOU'RE TAKING THE, THE LEFT, THE, I'M JUST, I'M JUST ASKING FOR WHAT, WHAT ARE THE TWO OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE? YEAH.
ONE OPTION IS YOU FIND THAT THE, THERE, THERE WAS THE CRITERIA MET, UM, FOR DEMOLITION AND WE CONTINUE MOVING.
THE OTHER OPTION IS YOU DIDN'T MEET THE CRITERIA.
NOW YOU CAN ONLY AS A CONDITION OF ISSUING THE COR, YOU HAVE TO REBUILD WHAT, THE ONLY THING YOU CAN BUILD IS THAT YOU REBUILD WHAT WAS DEMOLISHED.
UM, AND, BUT IS THERE A PROVISION NOT TO BUILD ANYTHING BACK FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME AS WELL? YEAH.
THAT'S WHERE IT RUNS INTO THAT TWO YEAR PERIOD.
I MEAN, LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS POLICY OF LIKE THIS POLICY REASON OF WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO REPLACE WHAT HAS BEEN LOST.
UM, THAT'S WHAT THIS, THIS SECOND OPTION I GUESS KIND OF GETS AT.
UM, BUT IT DOES KIND OF CO CONFLICT WITH THAT TWO YEAR RULE OF, YOU KNOW, IF, IF A DEMOLITION IS DONE WITHOUT A COA, NOTHING, NO PERMITS CAN BE ISSUED FOR TWO YEARS.
BUT THIS, I THINK IS SORT OF AN EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE.
UM, BUT IT REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER ALL THESE THINGS.
MR. COSGROVE HAS A QUESTION FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER BROBECK.
UM, I MEAN, I SEE IT AS THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS MM-HMM
I MEAN, ONE IS WE TAKE NO ACTION AND ALLOW THE ILLEGAL DEMOLITION PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE TO TAKE EFFECT, WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THEM FROM DOING ANYTHING FOR TWO YEARS, OR WE ACCEPT THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO DEMOLISH IT, OR WE GRANT THEM A COR TO REBUILD.
WHAT WAS THERE? IS IT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S,
[02:40:01]
I, I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT.AND THEN JUST FOR CONTEXT, THE PROPERTY WAS LISTED FOR SALE IN MLS PRIOR TO THE DEMOLITION.
IT WAS IDENTIFIED AS BEING IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, THE TAX RECORDS IDENTIFIED AS BEING IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO YES, THERE WAS OVERSIGHT ON THE CITY'S PART, BUT THE, THE PROPERTY WAS WELL REPRESENTED IN THE PUBLIC FACE AS BEING IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER BROBECK, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DR. NORMAN.
AND I'LL OPEN REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND WHILE YOU'RE APPROACHING, I'D LIKE TO SAY TO BOTH OF THE SPEAKERS, VERY POWERFUL TESTIMONY.
UM, SO DR. NORMAN, THIS COMMISSION HAS RECENTLY LEARNED THAT THE SETS OF FACTS AROUND A QUESTIONABLE OR EVEN AN ILLEGAL DEMOLITION CAN DEPEND ON WHO YOU'RE ASKING.
SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU IS, WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS WAS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN, JUST IN CASE YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT TO, UH, THE HEARING WHEN WE DO GET AN APPLICATION? SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS, I WAS ON THE ORIGINAL COMMITTEE FOR THE STARK WEATHER DISTRICT, UM, THAT STREET.
I WORKED VERY HARD WITH TANYA AND MR. DAVID WILLIAMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, WE HAD TO GET A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUALS TO SIGN UP, FIRST OF ALL, TO, TO SAY, OKAY, I, I DON'T MIND MY HOUSE BEING A HISTORICAL HOUSE.
AND THE MAJORITY OF THE, AND THOSE ARE NOT HERE, ARE OLDER INDIVIDUALS DURING THAT TIME.
AND SO WHAT WE WERE TOLD IN THIS MEETING, I NEVER FORGET THIS MEETING 'CAUSE I WAS LIKE TEE TOWEL ON WHETHER OR NOT I WANTED TO BE A HISTORICAL HOUSE, THAT WE COULD NOT, UM, CHANGE ANYTHING ON THAT HOUSE WITHOUT A PERMIT.
AND THE HOUSE, EVEN IF IT WAS SOLD, IT WOULD HAVE TO STAY IN THIS ORIGINAL STATE.
AND THE KNOW-HOWS COULD BE DEMOLISHED UNLESS IT WENT BACK THROUGH THE HISTORICAL COMMITTEE.
SO IT WASN'T FORCED BECAUSE WHEN I MOVED BACK FROM THE SUBURBS IN TOMBALL AND WANTED TO CHANGE OUT MY PORCH THAT'S THERE, I WENT STRAIGHT TO PERMIT AND PERMIT SENT ME TO HIM WITH HIS OFFICE.
AND THEY TOLD ME ABSOLUTELY NOT.
AND SO THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN I SEE THIS, THESE PEOPLE COMING IN FOURTH STREET, THESE DEVELOPERS COMING IN, AND THEY'RE JUST SITTING THERE AND I'M LIKE, OKAY, THEY GONNA GET IT.
BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN LIKE THAT.
SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS IT SAT THERE ABOUT A WEEK WITH, WITH THE BIG TRACTOR, WHATEVER.
AND SO I JUST CAME HOME ONE DAY AND EVERYTHING WAS GONE.
AND THAT'S WHEN I CALLED MR. TERRANCE AND I SAID, HEY, WHAT'S GOING ON? WASN'T IN THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
AND HE BASICALLY TOLD ME WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND I SAID, NO.
I SAID, AND I WAS VERY ADAMANT I WAS ON THAT COMMITTEE.
AND SO THEN HE WENT BACK AND HE TOLD ME WHAT HAD HAPPENED.
I DON'T WANT TO CRY BECAUSE WE WORKED HARD FOR THAT.
I AM THE THIRD GENERATION FROM A PLANTATION.
EVERYBODY ON THAT STREET WORKED EXTREMELY HARD.
AND THOSE WHO ARE THERE NOW, WE'RE JUST PASSING IT ON.
THE HOUSES ARE STILL STAYING WITH THE YOUNGER PEOPLE.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE I AM WITH IT NOW, BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT HAPPENED.
YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR SPEAKER? SO IT WAS WITH, WITHIN THEIR OFFICE, BECAUSE I WENT TO GET A, I WAS GOING TO TEST IT.
THEY SENT ME ALL THE WAY BACK TO HIM AND IT WAS A LONG MEETING.
HE WASN'T THERE AND I STILL DIDN'T GET IT.
COMMISSIONER, I MAY HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
UH, COMMISSIONER ESCOBAR, UM, YES.
AND PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I AM NOT TECHNICALLY ALLOWED TO ASK THIS QUESTION, BUT I FEEL LIKE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC COMMENT IS TO, TO GET INSIGHT.
ON THE INTENTION OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY FOR THINGS THAT DON'T FIT INTO WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US THAT ARE SUBJECTIVE.
UM, AND I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR, UM, AN ANSWER FROM, UH, MS. TANYA, AND I APOLOGIZE, I DIDN'T REMEMBER YOUR LAST NAME EITHER.
'CAUSE I KEEP HAVING TANYA DE BOAST IN MY BRAIN,
UM, WHEN IT COMES TO THE ABILITY FOR US TO MAKE A SUBJECTIVE DECISION, BECAUSE THERE IS THREE OPTIONS, TWO OPTIONS, ONE OPTION MM-HMM
ON WHAT COULD HAPPEN TECHNICALLY, BECAUSE THIS HASN'T HAPPENED THIS SAME WAY BEFORE.
THERE'S THE OPTION OF NOT DOING ANYTHING TO NOT REWARD SOMEONE WHO
[02:45:02]
SEEMINGLY, UH, ADVERTISED A HISTORIC HOME, DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD DEMOLISH IT AND MAYBE MADE A BET THAT EVEN IF THEY HAD TO REBUILD IT BACK, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CHARGE FOR A NEW HOME AND GET THE BENEFIT OF CONSTRUCTING A NEW HOME.AND HAVING TORN DOWN A HISTORIC HOME MM-HMM
YOU KNOW, IT WAS IN A GRAY AREA.
SO WE HAVE THE LATITUDE POSSIBLY TO SAY, WE'RE NOT GONNA REWARD YOU AND ALLOW YOU TO BUILD SOMETHING, MAKE A PROFIT, GET IN THERE AND GET SOMETHING GOING IN UNDER TWO YEARS, OR WE CAN DEFER FOR TWO YEARS.
UM, AND, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OPTION.
UM, THERE'S THE, YOU JUST CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING HERE.
UM, I'M CURIOUS OF THE OPTIONS YOU'VE HEARD, IS IT BETTER TO REPLACE THE HOME AND HAVING SOMETHING THERE THAT IS RESONANT WITH THE HISTORIC CONTEXT OF WHAT WAS THERE? UM, COMMUNITY BASED, LIKE FROM YOUR HEART, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT'S POLICY OR WHAT'S LEGAL MM-HMM
BUT WHAT'S COMMUNITY PREFERENCE? I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THAT FROM YOURSELF AND, AND VERY BRIEF.
'CAUSE I KNOW WE'RE ALREADY QUITE OVER TIME AND EVERYONE'S READY TO KIND OF MOVE ON, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHAT YOUR, WHAT MY INSTINCTUAL ANSWER WOULD BE TO WHAT SEEMS JUST WE WOULD RATHER THAT IT, IT JUST REMAIN MM-HMM
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE TAKE VERY MUCH PRIDE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MM-HMM
AND WE ARE, WE'RE, WE'RE FIGHTING MM-HMM
THAT THEY'RE BUILDING AND JUST LIKE, THEY'RE WAITING, THEY'RE NOT CUTTING THE GRASS MM-HMM
SO THEN I'M PAYING THE GUY $35.
CAN YOU GO OVER HERE AND CUT THIS GRASS SO THAT OUR STREET CAN LOOK GOOD? MM-HMM
AND SO, YES, BECAUSE IF YOU, IF YOU, I WOULD INVITE Y'ALL TO COME DOWN THE STREET.
TWO CARS CAN'T PASS DOWN THE STREET AT THE SAME TIME.
ONE CAN'T GO EAST AND ONE CAN'T GO THE WEST.
SO WE WOULD, WE WOULD PREFER MM-HMM
WE COULD DO A COMMUNITY GARDEN OR SOUTHERN, BUT WE WOULD JUST PREFER THAT NO ONE MOVE THERE.
UM, AND IS THAT THUMBS UP OR JUST TO MINIMIZE TIME AND COMMENT, BUT DO YOU SECOND THAT NOTION MS. TANYA? IHRC WILL DO WHATEVER IT'S THAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS.
WE ADVOCATE FOR THE COMMUNITY, SO SHE NEEDS TO COME.
FORMALLY IT NEEDS TO, I WAS JUST, OH YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.
I, I, WE HAVE HAVE TO HAVE IT ON RECORD.
MY APOLOGIES FOR EVEN ASKING YOU NOT TO.
FOR THE RECORD, THE QUESTION IS FOR TANYA WELLS, AND IF YOU COULD RESTATE YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR THE RECORDING, FOR PEOPLE THAT MAY BE WATCHING.
MY NAME IS TANYA WELLS, AGAIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL.
WE ADVOCATE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS.
SO IF THOSE RESIDENTS ARE SAYING THEY WANT A HOME REBUILT THAT WAS ILLEGALLY TORN DOWN, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE ADVOCATE FOR.
IF THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY WANT A COMMUNITY GARDEN, IF WHATEVER IT IS THAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE STAND BY.
BUT EVEN GREATER THAN THIS, WHAT I WANT YOU ALL TO TAKE AWAY FROM THIS IS, THIS IS HAPPENING ALL OVER INDEPENDENCE HEIGHTS.
AND THIS IS WHY WE'RE FURIOUS BECAUSE AS THE FIRST BLACK TOWN IN TEXAS, WE ARE NOT GETTING THE RECOGNITION THAT WE DESERVE.
AND MY PREDECESSOR, TANYA DUBBO, STOOD HERE BEFORE EVERYONE ALL THE TIME.
SHE IS NO LONGER HERE BECAUSE SHE FOUGHT MORE FOR THE COMMUNITY THAN SHE DID TAKE CARE OF HER HEALTH.
AND SO WE NEED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO WORK WITH US AND NOT AGAINST US.
SO I'M GOING, UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER DAVIS HAD A QUESTION.
I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO MY QUESTION IS, YOU, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING DEFERRAL THOUGH, FOR THE PROJECT? SO I NEED TO VOTE UNDER DEFERRAL.
IS THAT MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE SECOND ESCOBAR? OKAY.
UM, AND WHEN THERE IS MORE INFORMATION FOR THIS BODY TO REVIEW, IT WILL THEN EXERCISE.
ITS RIGHT TO REVIEW THAT INFORMATION.
UNTIL THEN, THERE'S MORE TO MORE TO COME OUR WAY, BUT UNTIL IT DOES, THERE'S NO MORE ACTION THAT WE CAN TAKE.
RIGHT? I'D LIKE YOU TO PRESENT 13 AND 14 TOGETHER TO SAVE TIME.
YOU MEAN YOU DON'T WANNA STAY HERE LONGER? I THINK WE'LL BE HERE LONG, NONETHELESS.
I MEAN, IF YOU INSIST I, I, I THOUGHT WE WERE HAVING A GOOD TIME HERE.
I WOULD JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT COMMISSIONER SIDE HAS HAD TO LEAVE THE MEETING.
AND SO, AND ALSO COMMISSIONER CARL SMITH.
[02:50:02]
UH, I CAN OFFICIALLY SAY GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE HHC, THIS IS STAFF MEMBER TERRENCE JACKSON.AND TODAY I SUBMIT TO YOU ITEM B 13 46 0 1 OAK RIDGE STREET.
THE PROPERTY INCLUDES A HISTORIC 1,832 SQUARE FOOT PEDIMENT BUNGALOW.
ONE STORY WOOD SINGLE SOMETHING'S WRONG.
UM, WOOD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DETACHED GARAGE SITUATED ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT CORNER LOT LOCATED IN A NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING GARAGE, DEMOLISH AND REPAIR THE EXISTING GARAGE FOUNDATION AS NEEDED, CONSTRUCT THE GARAGE WITH WOOD SIDING AND TO MATCH THE EXISTING, UH, HOME AND CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO CAR GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT THE BREEZEWAY FROM THE GARAGE TO THE HOME.
THE A, THE STA I'M SORRY FOR THE GARAGE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN ALTERATION ADDITION TO CONSTRUCT AN INTERIOR REMODEL OF THE EXISTING HOME.
REINFORCE THE FOUNDATION TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, CONSTRUCT A 532 UH, SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, UH, 65 SQUARE FOOT ON THE FIRST FLOOR, AND 467 ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
THEY WILL CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION WITH A FOUR OVER 12 ROOF PITCH WITH COMPOSITION ROOF SHINGLES.
THE EVE HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION WILL BE 17 FEET WITH THE MAXIMUM RIDGE HEIGHT OF 20 FEET, ONE AND A HALF INCHES.
THEY WILL DEMOLISH THE EXISTING GARAGE AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.
UH, CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION TO THE HOME WITH WOOD SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING AND INSTALL TWO NEW WINDOWS TO BE VINYL WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING.
UH, FOR THE, UH, ADDITION STAFF RECOMMENDS CON, UH, APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE EXISTING FRONT PORCH REMAIN AS IS.
AND THE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF THE WINDOW TOWARDS THE FRONT OF BOTH, UH, SIDES OF THE ELEVATIONS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE.
CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE HHC I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
AT THIS TIME, I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NOT HEARING ANYONE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE A QUESTION FOR STAFF UNDER THIS? WAS THIS AUTO WAS PULLED? YES.
I FOUND THIS COA TO BE VERY, VERY CONFUSING.
UM, IT'S ALMOST LIKE IT'S NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.
UM, IT, UH, THERE'S NO ROOF PLAN, THERE'S NO WINDOW PLAN, NO DOOR PLAN, ALL THE THINGS WE NORMALLY SEE.
I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU FIGURED OUT THE, WHAT THE EVE HEIGHT WAS, BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE THAT THAT'S ON HERE.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING, IS THIS PLAN READY? THAT'S MY QUESTION.
I, UH, BY READY, I MEAN, CAN WE, ARE WE READY TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE MISSING KEY ELEMENTS? OKAY.
SO, UH, IF YOU GO TO PAGE NINE, UM, ON THE REAR ELEVATION PROPOSED, UH, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE EVE HEIGHT IS CALLED OUT.
UM, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE, UH, TOP OF THE RIDGE IS CALLED OUT.
UM, YES, INDEED, WE DO NOT HAVE A WINDOW SCHEDULE.
UM, THIS HOUSE HAS VINYL WINDOWS.
THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL WINDOWS IN THIS HOME.
UM, ALL THE WINDOWS ARE VINYL.
THEY ARE PROPOSING TO MATCH THE EXISTING WINDOWS WITH VINYL.
UM, AND I, I BELIEVE YOU POINTED SOMETHING ELSE OUT.
UM, RIGHT THERE IS NO DOOR SCHEDULE.
UM, SORRY, I GOTTA GO TO THE SECOND APPLICATION.
THERE IS NO DOOR SCHEDULE, BUT THE ONLY DOOR BEING PROPOSED IS THE DOOR TO THE BREEZEWAY, UM, WHICH IS TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE HOME.
TERRANCE, COULD YOU RESTATE YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THE RECORD? UH, SO CONDITIONS, SO AN APPROVAL, WE, FOR THE, AN APPROVAL, UH, AND FOR THE, UM, FOR THE ADDITION ALTERATION, THE, UM, RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE EXISTING FRONT PORCH REMAIN AS IS.
AND THE PROPOSED REMOVAL OF THE WINDOWS TOWARDS THE FRONT OF BOTH SIDES OF EL BOTH
[02:55:01]
SIDE ELEVATIONS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE.ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? AND IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO VOTE ON BOTH OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME? BECAUSE THEY'RE CONNECTED? I, I WOULD PREFER THAT WE VOTE AT THE SAME TIME.
COMMISSIONER DAVIS, UM, WOULD YOU CONSIDER IT TO BE FRIENDLY IF I WERE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER? I THINK YOUR POINTS ARE FAIR.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SO WE ARE FULLY INFORMED BEFORE WE VOTE, BUT NOT IF YOU'RE NOT IN SUPPORT OF IT.
WELL, OKAY, SO, UM, I'M SORRY.
SO TERRANCE FOUND SOME THINGS THAT I COULDN'T FIND, AND SO I, I ACCEPT THAT ALTHOUGH WE REALLY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BLOW THESE THINGS UP SO WE CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
UM, AND SINCE THERE ARE ONLY TWO NEW WINDOWS AND THEY'RE VINYL, UM, TO MATCH THE OTHERS, UM, I DON'T KNOW.
UM, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, AND MAYBE THIS IS A SUBJECT FOR OUR WORKSHOP TO SAY WHAT HAS TO BE IN THE COA IN ORDER FOR US TO APPROVE IT.
SO I'M FINE WITH THIS AS IT IS, UM, BASED UPON TERRANCE'S INFORMATION.
UM, BUT WITH THE CAVEAT THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO STANDARDIZE THIS HERE, COMMISSIONER GARCIA, UH, QUESTION FOR TERRENCE, UM, TERRENCE, THE WINDOWS, UM, THAT THEY SHOW AS EXISTING DON'T SEEM TO MATCH THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
UH, AND YOU HAVE A, THE ON THE INVENTORY PHOTO, AND THEN YOU GO TO THE CURRENT PHOTO.
AND I'M ASSUMING THOSE, THOSE KIND OF LOOK AT THE FINAL WINDOWS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES, SIR.
SO, SO THOSE KIND OF HAVE THE EIGHT INCH OR THE SIX TO EIGHT INCH, UM, SEPARATION IN BETWEEN THEM.
BUT YOU GO TO THE, UM, 2D DRAWINGS THAT THEY HAVE, THEY, THEY'RE SHOWING EXISTING WINDOWS, BUT THEY LOOK LIKE THEY'RE, IT'S ONE, ONE WINDOW.
IT'S KINDA HARD TO TELL WITH THESE DRAWINGS.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, BUT I, I'M KIND OF, UM, IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER BRUBECK.
I, I THINK WE NEED TO, TO DEFER THIS SO THAT THEY CAN, UM, PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ON, ON THE WINDOWS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE, THAT THEY WANT TO PROVIDE, UM, AS, AS WELL AS THE DOOR SCHEDULES AND SO FORTH.
I THINK THE SCALES AND EVERYTHING LOOK OKAY.
IT'S JUST THE WINDOWS, UM, DON'T SEEM LIKE THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN CONTEXT WITH ANYTHING ON THE SPLUNK.
SO, UH, JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UM, I MEAN, OCCASIONALLY, OCCASIONALLY WE GET, UH, APPLICANTS WHO HAVE, UH, UM, CHOSEN ARCHITECTS WHO HAVE NEVER DONE WORK IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UM, AND I MEAN, AS YOU VERY WELL MAY KNOW, UM, UH, MOST TIMES, UH, WELL, YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, BUT, UH, MOST TIMES WHEN THAT'S THE CASE, THEY TYPICALLY HIRE A DRAFTER THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, DOES, ISN'T NECESSARILY REFINED OR EXPERIENCED AS FAR AS WHAT A HISTORIC OR WHAT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS.
AND THEY'RE JUST CRANKING OUT DRAWINGS, A NUMBER OF DRAWINGS, AND, AND, UM, I THINK THAT'S THE CASE HERE.
UM, STAFF, HOWEVER, UH, DIDN'T FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD BE PENALIZED FOR THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REMOVING ANY OF THE, UH, EXISTING WINDOWS ON THE FRONT FACADE.
THE ONES THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT, UM, DON'T LOOK CORRECT, UM, THOSE WINDOWS ARE GOING TO REMAIN.
UM, THEY DID PROPOSE TO REMOVE SOME WINDOWS TOWARDS THE FRONT ON THE SIDE ELEVATION, UM, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE THEM HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
UM, UH, AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE, WE'RE SUGGESTING THAT THOSE WINDOWS REMAIN, THE ONLY WINDOWS THAT ARE BEING PUT IN ARE THE TWO WINDOWS THAT ARE GONNA, I BELIEVE IT'S TWO OR THREE WINDOWS THAT ARE GONNA BE ON THE ADDITION.
UM, SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY WINDOWS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING.
UM, THAT'LL BE NEW, UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE VINYL WINDOWS.
UM, I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THEY'RE JAILED WIND BECAUSE I RECEIVED AN EMAIL ABOUT THAT.
UH, BUT THEY DID NOT PROVIDE A WINDOW SCHEDULE.
I DID, YOU KNOW, ASK FOR A WINDOW SCHEDULE AND A DOOR SCHEDULE.
BUT, UH, UH, THEY SENT ME AN EMAIL, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS YESTERDAY EVENING, UM, SAYING THAT THE ONLY DOOR THAT THEY WERE ADDING WAS THE DOOR AT THE BREEZEWAY, WHICH HAS, I MEAN, AT THE REAR OF THE HOME.
UM, AND THEN THE ONLY WINDOWS THEY WERE ADDING WERE THE TWO WINDOWS IN THE ADDITION.
UH, SO I MEAN, I, I UNDERSTAND, UH, WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM AND, AND I'LL RELAY
[03:00:01]
THE MESSAGE IF THAT IS A DECISION.BUT, UM, FROM STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW, UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN, WE, A LOT OF TIMES WE MAKE REQUESTS DOESN'T HAPPEN.
SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T, ESPECIALLY WITH SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THE SEVERITY OF IT, BUT, UM, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
I THINK, I THINK, UM, AND I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T EXPECT EVERY HOMEOWNER TO HIRE A PROFESSIONAL, UM, TO DO THEIR DRAWINGS FOR 'EM.
BUT THE, THE DRAWINGS, MY POINT WAS THE DRAWINGS DON'T REFLECT WHAT'S, WHAT'S THERE.
UM, AND IT'S ONLY TWO WINDOWS I UNDERSTAND.
IS THERE, IS THERE A MECHANISM THAT STAFF HAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WINDOWS MATCH WHAT'S, WHAT'S ACTUALLY INSTALLED CURRENTLY? YEAH, SO I MEAN, I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY CALL IT A MECHANISM, BUT, UM, STAFF HAS A POLICY THAT, UM, AND THIS IS A BIT OF AN ANOMALY BECAUSE, UM, ALL THESE WINDOWS ARE NON-ORIGINAL.
UM, SO STAFF POLICY IS IN ADDITIONS.
UH, YOU NEED, YOU SHOULD USE, UH, WOOD OR WOOD CLAD WINDOWS THAT ARE INSET IN RECESS.
UM, ASKING SOMEONE TO DO THAT IN A HOUSE LIKE THIS, THAT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, AND, AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS A CORNER LOT AND THOSE WINDOWS WILL BE SEEN ON THE CORNER LOT, AND IT'S ONLY TWO WINDOWS STEP KIND OF FELT, YOU KNOW WHAT, TWO VINYL WINDOWS, IT'S NOT OVERKILL, IT'S NOT A BIG ISSUE.
UM, SO WE DIDN'T APPLY THAT POLICY TO THIS PROJECT.
UM, BUT THAT IS THE MECHANISM, IF YOU WILL, THAT STAFF TYPICALLY USES, BECAUSE WE, UH, WOULD LIKE TO SEE WOOD OR WOOD CLAD WINDOWS THAT ARE INSET IN RECESS THAT IT WOULD LOOK KIND OF SILLY ON THIS HOUSE.
SO IS A, SORRY, COMMISSIONER DAVIS FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER BLAKELY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU, THAT PEOPLE MAY HIRE SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE, BUT THESE PLANS CAN'T BE PERMITTED, CAN THEY, IN THEIR CURRENT, CAN THEY, THESE PLANS BE PERMITTED IN THEIR CURRENT, OKAY, CAN I, OKAY, I'LL JUST SAY THIS, THAT, THAT, UM, WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING FROM FOLKS AREN'T, AREN'T PERMIT DOCUMENTS.
UM, A, A DIFFERENT SET OF DOCUMENTS WOULD BE CREATED FOR PERMITS.
NOW, SOMETIMES PEOPLE SUBMIT THEIR PERMIT DOCUMENTS TO US, AND THAT'S WHEN YOU GET THOSE, UH, WHAT TERRANCE CLIPS OFF THE NOTES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, LIKE THOSE ARROWS PROBABLY WAS FROM A PERMIT PACKAGE.
BUT WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING IS REALLY A DRAWING THAT IS MEANT TO BE, TO SCALE AND ADEQUATELY REPRESENT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THE DETERMINATION.
BUT, BUT WE ARE NOT REQUIRING PERMANENT DRAWINGS FOR OUR REVIEW, BUT WE DO, WE DO WANT THEM TO BE PROPORTIONAL SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THEY'RE ACCURATE.
TO YOUR POINT, DOES ANYBODY GO BACK AND CHECK WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR PERMITS? YES.
TO MAKE SURE THAT IS DONE? OKAY.
SO BIG REMIT, AGAIN, WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HOLD THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE PERMIT SYSTEM.
AND SO, AND IF ANYONE MAKES AN APPLICATION AND THERE'S DRAWINGS, STAFF GETS CONTACTED BY THE PERMIT OFFICE, THEY LOOK AT THE DRAWINGS ON THEIR SCREEN, THEY LOOK AT THE C OF A, AND THEY COMPARE THE TWO AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY LOOK LIKE THEY'RE THE SAME INSTRUCTIONS THEY READ THROUGH THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE, AND IF THEY'RE SATISFIED, THEY RELEASE THE HOLD.
THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE HOLD.
THE HOLD IS THERE SO THAT UNLESS SOMEONE ON STAFF RELEASES IT, IT REMAINS UNTIL IT'S, THEY, THEY CHECK THAT NOW THEY COULD BILL SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY.
BUT, BUT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHENEVER YOU TRY TO PULL A PERMIT AND YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A HOLD.
AND IF, AND IF YOU'RE PULLING A PERMIT AND STAFF SAT TO LUNCH OR THEY'RE HAVING A PARTY THAT DAY, YOU DON'T GET A PERMIT
BUT THAT, THAT'S, THAT THAT'S HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.
AND THAT'S HOW IT, MY EXPERIENCE, IT DOES WORK.
COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, UH, ON PAGE AND THEN I'LL CALL FOR A SECOND.
IT LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING LIKE, IS A PORCH BEING ADDED TO THE BUILDING? YES.
THAT'S WHY THE, THERE'S A, A CONDITION THAT THE, THAT THE, UH, THAT THE EXISTING REMAIN AND THAT THE PORCH NOT BE APART BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CONTEXT AREA FOR THE, FOR A, UM, I BELIEVE THIS IS A PEDIMENT BUNGALOW, BUT THERE'S NO, UH, NOTHING IN THE CONTEXT AREA OF A IMPEDIMENT BUNGALOW HAVING SUCH A, UH, PORCH BECAUSE THEY DON'T SHOW IT IN PLAN IF I'M READING THESE PLANS CORRECTLY.
SO YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING THEY CAN'T BUILD THE PORCH.
IS THERE A SECOND TO DEFER? DID WE PROVIDE A SORT OF LIST OF WHAT IT IS WE WANT TO SEE? UH,
[03:05:01]
WHEN THEY COME BACK? I JUST WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE DRAWINGS THAT STILL HAD AMBIGUITIES COME BACK A SECOND TIME FOR THEIR SAKE AND FOR OURS IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, IT, IT, THAT WOULD ALL BE IN THE TRANSCRIPT FROM TONIGHT'S MEETING? THAT IS CORRECT.I THINK STAFF CAN CONVEY IF, IF THERE'S A SECOND AND IF THERE'S A SUCCESSFUL VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE VOTE TO DEFER? AYE.
OPPOSED? SO IS THERE THREE OPPOSED OR FOUR OPPOSED? SO THAT'S FOUR OPPOSED.
AND HOW MANY WERE FOUR? THE THE MOTION ONE MAYBE RAISE YOUR HAND.
WHAT CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE HHCI SUBMIT TO YOU? ITEM B 15, 11 31 DUNBAR.
THE PROPERTY INCLUDES THE HISTORIC 885 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY WOOD FRAME, BUNGALOW BUNGALOW, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE BUILT CIRCA 1930 AND IT AND DETACHED GARAGE SITUATED ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT INTERIOR LOT LOCATED IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING NON-ORIGINAL ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE, REMODELED THE INTERIOR RESTROOM IN THE EXISTING GARAGE, REMOVE THE EXISTING SIDING ON THE GARAGE AND REPLACE WITH SE CEMENTITIOUS SIDING.
REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING GARAGE DOOR WITH A MORE MODERN GARAGE DOOR CONSTRUCT.
A 1,391 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY REAR EDITION WITH 794 SQUARE FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND 597 SQUARE FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
THEY PROPOSED TO REMOVE THE EXISTING ASBESTOS SIDING ON THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE STRUCTURE TO EXPOSE THE ONE 17 SIDING.
UNDERNEATH THE ONE 17 SIDING IS TO BE REPAIRED AND REPLACED AS NEEDED.
THEY WILL CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION WITH COMPOSITION SHINGLES AND A SIX OVER 12 ROOF PITCH TO MATCH THE EXISTING.
THE MAXIMUM RIDGE HEIGHT WILL BE 24 FEET SIX INCHES AND THEY WILL CON, I ALREADY SAID THAT THE ADDITION WILL BE CON CONSTRUCTED WITH WOOD OR WOOD CLAD WINDOWS TO BE INSET AND RECESS, AND THE EXISTING WINDOWS ARE TO REMAIN AND TO BE REPAIRED IF NECESSARY.
UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE HHC.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU ALL OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM? NOPE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
WHAT IS THE REAR SETBACK ON THE HOUSE? ON THE HOUSE, RIGHT.
WHAT IS THE SETBACK? HOW MUCH? I CAN'T, I CAN'T READ IT.
IT LOOKS LIKE I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ONE IS.
BECAUSE THE GARAGE IS GRANDFATHERED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MOVING IT, I DON'T THINK.
BUT SO FOR JUST FOR THAT, FOR THE HOUSE.
AND I'M JUST SENSITIVE TO, SINCE NOBODY FROM NORWELL, NORELLE IS HERE TO OBJECT.
AND SINCE THE GUIDELINES ARE 19 FEET AND THIS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE 19 FEET, BUT I CAN'T READ IT.
SO IF YOU COULD JUST CLARIFY THAT.
I MEAN, I SEE A DIMENSION OF 19 FEET, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE A DIMENSION STRING THAT IT GOES TO.
UM, I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT DIMENSION ON.
I SEE IF THAT'S FOUR, IT'S 20 FEET.
ARE YOU LOOKING AT PAGE EIGHT? I'M LOOKING AT PAGE.
TERRANCE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS.
YEAH, SOMETHING DOESN'T SEEM PROPORTIONALLY.
SORRY, I'M ON THE WRONG REPORT.
[03:10:07]
10 FEET.THERE IS NO SETBACK DIMENSION.
BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE THAT UM, STAFF CANNOT ENFORCE THE NOR HILL DESIGN GUIDELINES BECAUSE THEY ARE DRAFT AND THEY ARE NOT, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
CAN WE SEE THE SIDE ELEVATION IN OTHER PROPOSED DESIGN? ONE MORE TIME.
REAR SETBACK IS EIGHT FEET, EIGHT AND A HALF INCHES.
AND YOU SAID YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE, OH, YOU SAID SIDE ELEVATION, IS THAT, HOW TALL IS THIS? AND I SEE IT NOW.
AND HOW TALL IS THAT STRUCTURE? THE SECOND, UH, THE RIDGE HEIGHT IS, UH, NOT THE RIDGE, BUT THE E HEIGHT E SORRY, SORRY.
I DIDN'T PUT THE E HEIGHT IN MY, JUST BOTTOM OF THE EVE, UH, IS GONNA BE 17 TWO OH OH, I GOT IT.
I DON'T WANT TO MESS UP YOUR NEW LAPTOP.
SO THE BOTTOM OF THE EVE IS AT 17 TOO.
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE PROJECT? UM, THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY IS IT, THERE'S OFTEN, YOU KNOW, A FIVE FOOT GROUND EASEMENT.
THERE'S A 10 FOOT AERIAL EASEMENT ABOUT 20 FEET.
IT'S REALLY CLOSE TO WITHIN THAT UTILITY MANDATED AREA.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT A SETBACK THAT WE, UM, THAT WE ENFORCE.
SO, BUT MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
AND NOW WE'RE AT ITEM 17 1 0 1 2 KEY STREET.
GOOD EVENING CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS STAFFPERSON SAMANTHA DELEON.
I SUBMIT ITEM B 17 AT 10 12 KEY STREET IN THE NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THE 873 SQUARE FOOT, UH, CONTRIBUTING ONE STORY BUNGALOW STYLE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
RESIDENCE WAS BUILT IN 1930, SITUATED ON A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDING A 320 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY REAR ADDITION TO THE EXISTING ONE STORY STRUCTURE, THE PROJECT RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, FROM THE NOR HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION.
THE OWNER BRIAN DAVIS, IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I'M ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.
UH, NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, BUT IF YOU, UM, AS THE APPLICANT OR OWNER WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, YOU, YOU ARE INVITED.
HE WOULD JUST LIKE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU, ANYBODY MAY HAVE UN UNDERSTOOD.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM LEFT THAT WOULD SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NOT SEEING ANYONE.
UM, IF, IF YOU DON'T WANNA SPEAK, YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOW.
ANY QUESTIONS OF THIS, UH, APPLICATION OF STAFF? OKAY.
UM, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THESE CLAIRE STORY WINDOWS CAN BE WOOD AND THEY CAN BE INSET AND RECESSED, BUT I THINK ON THE FRONTIER YOU'RE REALLY STRAINING THE COMPATIBILITY IN NOR HILL.
IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM COMPATIBLE TO ME FOR NOR HILL NOR HILL APPROVED, NOR NOR HILL APPROVED IT.
IT'S IN THE VERY LAST PAGE OF MY PRESENT.
LIKE YEAH, BUT THEY APPROVED IT WOULD NOT BE THE MM-HMM
WOULDN'T THAT BE WHO WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE FEELS LIKE IT'S COMPATIBLE? IS THE NOR HILL THEMSELVES GIVEN
[03:15:01]
THE HISTORY OF KIND OF OUR CONTINUING CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM? YES.UM, I DID NOT SEE THAT, UM, ON THE, UM, ON THE REPORT AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, IT WORKS FOR ME.
BUT, BUT COMMISSION MEMBERS DO HAVE THE, THE PURVIEW TO, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE NOT, I MEAN, WE WE'RE JUST BECAUSE A, A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SAYS THEY APPROVE OR THEY DON'T APPROVE, WE WE'RE STILL, UH, WE, WE CAN STILL MAKE OUR OWN CONSENSUS WHATEVER, WHETHER IT'S IN AGREEMENT OR NOT IN AGREEMENT.
SO IT'S THAT, THAT, JUST, JUST TO MENTION THAT.
BUT, UM, SO I THINK, UM, TO THAT POINT, UM, AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DESIGNING A PAIR, BUT IT'S JUST REALLY GLARING TO ME AND DOES NOT FEEL COMPATIBLE.
AND SO THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT.
AND COMMISSIONER BLAKELY, YOU QUESTION, IS THERE SOMEONE WHO CAN EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE FOR THE CLARA STORY WINDOWS? WHO'S HERE? SO THE OWNER IS HERE.
UM, THEY DID BASE IT OFF OF A, OF, AS YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT NOW FROM A PREVIOUS EDITION THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2003.
BUT FOR THE REASONING, UH, MR. BRIAN DAVIS CAN GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE THAT.
SO I'LL, I'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND MR. DAVIS, IF YOU COULD RE RESTATE YOUR FULL NAME FOR THE RECORD IN THE MICROPHONE.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR YOUR TIME, UM, WHEN IT CAME TO DESIGNING THE HOUSE.
UM, SO I'M A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF THE HEIGHTS.
I LOVE MY STREET, MY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I LIKE WHAT NOR HILL IS AND I'M NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THAT.
UM, WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP THE HOUSE AND THE YARD, UH, TO THE SAME SIMILAR DIMENSIONS TO WHAT WE'VE HAD IT OVER THE PAST 26 YEARS.
WE LOVE THE BACKYARD, THE SPACE, AND FOR US TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT'S BIG ENOUGH FOR OUR NEEDS TODAY.
WHATEVER REQUIRED GOING DEEPER IS THE YARD.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO A SMALL ADDITION UPSTAIRS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THE SPACE TO GO INSIDE THE HOUSE, KEEP THE BACKYARD, AND THE TWO CAR GARAGE.
WHEN IT CAME TO THE CLEAR STORY WINDOWS, THE DESIGN OF THE HOUSE, UH, FOR US TO HAVE THE BEDROOM ON THE BACK TO ENJOY THE BACKYARD, PUT THE, UH, THE BATHROOM AND THE CLOSET TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WE MET WITH, UH, WITH VIRGINIA FROM NOR HILL HEIGHTS.
SHE CAME TO THE HOUSE TO TRY TO CONVINCE US TO PUT IN DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS IN BOTH OF THOSE SPACES, ESPECIALLY ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
AND AS WE LOOKED AT MOVING THE ROOMS AROUND AND HOW WE WERE TO GET LIGHT INTO THE BATHROOM, INTO THE CLOSET, DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS JUST DIDN'T WORK ON THE SMALL SPACE THAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH.
UM, SHE SUGGESTED PUTTING DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS IN THE SHOWER THAT WASN'T GOING TO WORK.
UM, AND SO SHORT OF NOT HAVING LIGHT ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND MAYBE PUTTING JUST THE CLEAR STORY ON THE SIDE, UM, SHE WENT BACK TO NOR HILL COMMISSION AND THEY DECIDED THAT JUST BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THIS HOUSE THAT WAS THE BEST OPTION.
UM, I DROVE UP AND DOWN EVERY SINGLE STREET IN NOR HILL AND COUNTED THE HOUSES THAT DO HAVE CLARA STORY WINDOWS PREDOMINANTLY ON THE SIDES AND ON THE BACK.
WE DID FIND THE HOUSE THAT WE USED AS AN EXAMPLE THAT HAD THEM ON THE FRONT.
UH, BUT WE FELT IN THIS EXAMPLE THAT UM, IT IS THE BEST USE OF SPACE FOR THE SECOND STORY FOR US.
UM, I KNOW EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS ON THE STREET, THEY'VE ALL SEEN OUR PLANS FOR IT.
UM, EVERYBODY SEEMS TO LIKE WHAT WE HAVE AND SO I, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A BIT, UM, OF A STRETCH FOR WHAT WE SEE IN NOR HILL, BUT I BELIEVE IN THIS EXAMPLE IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE HOUSE.
OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE A MOTION? UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT? ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION? I'M TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE A SECOND OR SEE A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
I BELIEVE WE'RE NOW AT NUMBER, UM, RU ARE WE 20 OR ARE WE 21? IT WAS 15.
IT WAS DEFERRED BY THE APPLICANT AND DEFERRED BY THE APPLICANT, I DON'T THINK.
A, UH, GOOD EVENING CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON SAMANTHA DELEON.
I SUBMIT ITEM B 21 AT 1515 RUTLAND STREET IN HOUSTON HEIGHTS, WEST HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
UH, THE 1910 CONTRIBUTING QUEEN AND SINGLE STORY, FAMILY RESIDENCE AND NON-CONTRIBUTING GARAGE, UH, WAS, OR THE MAIN HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1930, SITUATED ON A EIGHT, UH, BUILT IN 1910, SITUATED ON AN 8,800 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 43.15 SQUARE
[03:20:01]
FOOT, DETACHED A DU IN FRONT OF THE EXISTING NON-CONTRIBUTING REAR GARAGE TO BE AN OFFICE.THE PROPOSED A DU MEETS MEASURABLE STANDARDS, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE PROVISION TO THE RIGHT, LOCATED ON PAGE ONE DASH 11 OF THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES.
SINCE THE EXISTING GARAGE IS LARGER THAN 900 SQUARE FEET, IT CANNOT BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED AND MUST BE APPROVED BY COMMISSION.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
UH, THE OWNER IS NOT HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC LEAVING.
UH, WITH, WITH, WITH THAT I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF, OF, OF STAFF FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS? I JUST WANNA CORRECT A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THIS IS NOT A 1,290 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE, UH, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THIS IS A 2,770 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE AND THE GARAGE IS A 640 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOU'RE GETTING 900 SQUARE FEET.
DO YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT? SO LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, UH, STAFF DETERMINED THAT WE COUNTED THE FIRST AND THE SECOND FLOOR, SO IT'S OVER 900 SQUARE FEET.
SO THE ISSUE IS, SO JUST IN THE HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES, IT JUST STATES THAT ONLY ONE, IT ONE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CAN BE BUILT ON THERE.
AND THAT ANOTHER ONE WOULD BASICALLY GO AHEAD AND CHANGE THE, UM, DECLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIFAMILY.
SO THAT WAS WHY WE COULD NOT, UH, HAVE THIS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.
SO I TOTALLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DID THE SUM OF THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR FOR THIS GUIDELINE.
UM, BUT THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD HAVE WOULD BE IS THE, UM, IS THE STRUCTURE, ARE THE DOORS ON THE FRONT, ARE THEY OFFSET OR ARE THEY IN THE, ARE THEY SYMMETRIC? IS IT, IS IT SYMMETRICAL? BECAUSE YOU'VE SHOWN, YOU'RE SHOWING IT TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
SO THE PHOTO THAT YOU'RE SEEING ON PAGE 11 IS THE FRONT AND THEN THE BACK IS ON PAGE 13, WHICH SHOWS IT'S SLIGHTLY OFF CENTER.
SO THE ONE FROM THE STREET IS OKAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IF NOT, IS IF THERE'S A MOTION, I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE A SECOND? ESCOBAR SECOND ESCOBAR.
THIS IS STAFF PERSON CHARLES SADLER.
I SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ITEM B 24.
EXCUSE ME, I GOT A LITTLE ALLERGIES, WHICH IS 1127 LAG GREENE STREET AND NOR HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THIS IS A NON-CONTRIBUTING ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CIRCA 1927.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NEW ROOF OF THE SAME COMPOSITION SHINGLE.
THE MAIN CHANGES ARE ON THE FRONT FACADE, THE FRONT, WHICH IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION, THE PROPOSING REMOVAL OF GLASS BLOCK RECONFIGURING TO A MORE APPROPRIATE BUNGALOW STYLE.
SO THE BLACK GLASS BLOCK BLOCK WILL GO AWAY.
ADDITION OF A FRONT PORCH WITH STEPS AND RAILINGS.
YOU CAN SEE THE SANDBORN ON PAGES FOUR THROUGH 10, UH, ACTUALLY SEABOARD AND BLA, WHICH GIVES EVIDENCE OF A FRONT PORCH, UH, THE SIDE EAST ELEVATION, UH, PROPOSING REMOVAL OF OF EXISTING NON-ORIGINAL SIDE DOOR AND LANDING STEPS AND REPLACING THAT WITH THE WINDOW, A SIDE THE REAR EAST, WEST, AND THE, UH, I'M SORRY, SIDES.
AND THE REAR, UH, THE PROPOSING ADDITION OF NEW WINDOWS WITH TRIM.
AND THEN THE ADDITION OF TRIM TO SOME OF THE EXISTING WINDOWS.
EXCUSE ME, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP.
UH, THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS OR CIVIC ASSOCIATION COMMENTS.
[03:25:01]
UM, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.I'LL, I WILL OPEN AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE WE HAVE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC REMAINING.
UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF FOR THIS ITEM? UM, I PULLED IT BECAUSE THE LAST TIME I LOOKED AT THIS, IT DIDN'T HAVE ALL THIS INFORMATION, SO I JUST WANTED A MINUTE TO REVIEW.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INFORMATION? I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE A MOTION, GARCIA? MOTION TO APPROVE STATUS RECOMMENDATION? I'LL SECOND.
OKAY, SO WE'LL NOW PROCEED WITH ITEM C.
SHE'S SAYING NO ACTION NEEDED BECAUSE SHE'S PRESENT.
DID YOU WANNA EXPLAIN? SO IF YOU MISS TWO ABSENCE IN A ROW, WE HAVE TO EXCUSE AN ABSENCE, BUT BECAUSE SHE'S PRESENT, NO ACTION IS NEEDED.
AND SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO ITEM UM, D.
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, WHICH I'LL OPEN AND CLOSE AS THERE ARE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LEFT.
UH, WITH THAT WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM E, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER'S REPORT.
UH, CHAIR
UM, MY NAME IS YASMINE ARSLAN AND I'M SERVING AS THE INTERIM PRESERVATION OFFICER.
I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE PRESERVATION OFFICER'S REPORT FOR ME.
HIGHLIGHTING KEY UPDATES AND ONGOING EFFORTS TO PRESERVE HOUSTON'S HISTORIC CHARACTER.
WE EXTEND OUR SINCERE THANKS TO ALL APPLICANTS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO TOOK THE TIME TO RESPOND TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TRACKER SURVEY.
YOUR FEEDBACK PROVIDES VALUABLE PUBLIC INPUT AND WILL HELP GUIDE ONGOING IMPROVEMENTS, UH, TO OUR PROCESSES AND CUSTOMER SERVICE STAFF MEMBER TERRANCE JACKSON ATTENDED A DOCUMENTARY SCREENING LAST SUNDAY FEATURING THE LEWIS WHITE GROCERY, A CITY OF HOUSTON PROTECTED LANDMARK, LOCATED IN THE FIFTH WARD AND LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.
THIS EVENT PROVIDED A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE WITH THE COMMUNITY AND CELEBRATE ONE OF HOUSTON'S HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT NEIGHBORHOOD INSTITUTIONS.
FINALLY, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK THE ENTIRE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM FOR THEIR CONTINUED, CONTINUED DEDICATION.
DESPITE A CONSISTENTLY HEAVY WORKLOAD AND A SMALLER TEAM, STAFF REMAIN COMMITTED TO SERVING APPLICANTS EFFICIENTLY AND WITH CARE.
YOUR HARD WORK ENSURES WE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE PRESERVATION OF HOUSTON'S DIVERSE HISTORIC RESOURCES.
CHAIR,
I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING OUR SHARED WORK IN PRESERVING HOUSTON'S HISTORIC PLACES CLOSING.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CALL THE HOUSTON OFFICE OF PRESERVATION HOTLINE AT 8 3 2 3 9 3 6 5 5 6 OR VISIT OUR WEBSITE@HOUSTONPLANNING.COM.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESERVATION OFFICER'S REPORT.
AND WITH THAT WE ARE ADJOURNED.