It is now 232 p.m.

Thursday, August 14th, 2025.

Today's meeting of the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission, HAHC is called to order.

I am Commission Chair David Buchek, and to verify we have a quorum, I will call the roll.

The Chair is present.

Sorry, yes, Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Blakely will be absent today.

Commissioner Sapulvida is not here currently.

Commissioner Cosgrove.

Commissioner McNeil.

Commissioner Curry.

Not here currently.

Commissioner Yap.

Commissioner Stava.

Present.

Commissioner Couch.

And our Deputy Director Robert Williamson.

Present.

Thank you, Commissioners.

We have a quorum.

As part of the chair's report, I'll just read out some of the speaker rules that are posted.

This meeting can be viewed on HTV, although virtual participation options are not available.

Meetings start about a minute after the scheduled time so that we can allow for HTV broadcast to go live.

Speakers, if you wish to address the Commission on an item, please fill out the speaker's form before the item is called and turn it into uh staff near the front door.

Um the speaker rules are posted on the agenda and are at my discretion at this meeting.

Applicants may open and speak for three minutes.

You may also be recognized to close with an additional two minutes.

I may call on you for additional time to answer questions from Commission members.

Other public speakers may speak one time up to two minutes when I recognize you to speak.

Uh please note for individual consideration of certificate of appropriateness after staff's initial presentation.

I will open the public hearing.

Commission members hold your questions for staff until our deliberations have been um before our deliberations until after the public hearing has been has already been open.

And with that, I will turn this uh over to the uh director's report uh thank you, David.

Uh good afternoon, Chair Buchek, historic commission members and the public.

Um Robert Williamson, acting secretary of the commission and deputy director of the Houston Planning and Development Department.

For my report today, I have several announcements.

Uh first, the state legislature just passed House Bill 1522 amending the Texas Open Meetings Act that will impact the timing of our notice postings for the Commission.

Effective September 1st, the 72-hour notice requirement has been changed to three business days prior to the meeting.

Consequently, our posting requirement will back up from Mondays at 2 30 p.m.

to end of business on the Friday before the next meeting.

City holidays cannot be counted as well, which may push the notice date back an additional day or so depending on the holiday and our commission schedule.

Next, uh four mayoral appointment members of the commission whose terms have expired are rotating off the commission, and this will be their last meeting.

Position six, Beth Wheedar, a three-term member and our vice chair and commercial representative.

Position four, Rhonda Sapelvuda, a two-term member and our cultural history representative.

Position eight, Stephen McNeil, a four-term member and a remodeler builder representative.

And finally, position nine, Stephen Curry, a three-term member and our preservation specialist.

These four members have made a significant contribution to the Commission and Houston Historic Preservation efforts.

So on behalf of the city, I want to thank them for their commitment to the commission and the service to the city.

The planning department would all also like to acknowledge their service with a certificate of appreciation and a small gift that I will distribute at the end of my report.

Four current commissioners are being reappointed by Mayor Whitmore and include Commissioners Jones, Blakely, Buchek, and Cosgrove.

The mayor's four replacement members will be introduced at our next meeting after they have been confirmed by City Council and sworn in.

In closing, if you have any questions, you can call the Houston Office of Preservation Hotline at 832-393-6556 or visit our website at Houston Planning dot com.

This concludes my report.

Thank you, and now I'd like to distribute these certificates.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

And um one thing we're gonna do next is um because there's not a mayor's uh liaison report today, um, but we've been asked to pose for a photograph.

So uh we'll now assemble in the front area where the four chairs are, and we will um mark this day for the record.

So if you'll join me in the front, thank you.

What is that?

I mean, I'm not gonna be able to do that.

I don't think we might be using this photograph beyond today's point.

Yeah.

I think it's just a moment in time, so it's it's uh I think if you look up our website, if you look at our website currently, the the photographs don't represent this body either.

So but this was the request.

Okay.

Staff report.

Okay, we will now move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the uh consideration of our meeting minutes from July 17th, 2025.

Commission members, are there any questions about the minutes in the packet?

Are there any corrections?

And if not, is there a motion to accept the minutes?

Conscribe moves to accept the minutes.

I got a motion is there a second.

Yep, seconds.

Yep, seconds.

All in favor?

I mean, any abstentions?

The motion passes.

And we will now move on uh to item A.

And so the first uh uh item is gonna be the consideration of impossible action on referral to the Texas Historical Commission for nomination to the tech to the to the National Registry of Historic Places for First City National Bank at one zero two one Main Street and eleven zero one Fannin Street, Houston, Texas, seven seven zero zero two.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission.

This is staff person Yasmin Arslan.

I submit item A for your consideration and possible action on the nomination of First City National Bank located at ten twenty-one Main Street and eleven zero one Fannon Street to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The 1961 First City National Bank is a corporate modern skyscraper in the center of downtown Houston, Texas.

The historic functionally related complex includes a 32-story office tower, hyphen and non-historic parking garage connected by an original subterranean tunnel to the original detached seven.

I'm sorry.

Pardon if I stop you, but the screen that we see in front of your podium is not actually on.

So I see this the two side screens are turned on, but the front.

Can you ask the HTV?

Sorry about that.

We'll have one.

Are they rotated?

Don't have to follow them.

What about the public?

The public.

Should I continue or do we wait till this is on?

Okay.

Hopefully it's just a power button issue.

Perfect.

Okay.

Do I start from the top?

No.

Okay.

I think we're fine.

The 1961 First City National Bank is a corporate modern skyscraper in the center of downtown Houston, Texas.

The historic functionally related complex include a 32-story office tower hyphen and a 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 garage are located at 1021 Main Street.

And the original garage is located at 1101 Fannon Street.

When First National Bank and City National Bank merged in 1956, it was determined that a larger modern office complex was needed to house the corporation.

The First City National Bank complex retains a high level of integrity of location, setting, design, workmanship, feeling, and association.

While some exterior materials have been altered, the office towers form defined by its structure is visible the same as when it was completed in 1961, which is also its defined period of significance.

Staff recommends that the HIHC supports the nomination of First City National Bank to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C in the area of architecture at the local level of significance.

Chair and members of the commission, I am available for any question.

This includes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time I'll open the public hearing.

Is there anyone who would like to speak on this matter?

I do not have anyone signed up on this item.

Not hearing anyone, I'll close the public hearing.

Commission members, are any questions of staff?

And if not, is there a motion?

Um I'm just saying is we as legal, we would like to have a motion to um to recommend this nomination.

Yeah.

It's odd, it's posted on the agenda for consideration and possible actions.

Staff advises you all have not voted on a formal referral referral in previous meetings, however.

So I think as long as there's no objection to it, you could ask generally for objections from commission.

And if there are none, then staff would go ahead and recommend the and send that referral up.

Alternatively, you could take a motion and start voting on them.

That's since it's posted for it.

I am going to decline that option and um just ask staff if uh uh commission members if there's any questions or concerns about this application to please let us know for the record.

Okay.

Um so then we will move on to the next item on the agenda, which is uh item B, the consideration of and possible action on a referral to the Texas Historical Commission for nomination to the National Registry of Historic Places for Inwood Manor at 3711 San Philippi Street, Houston, Texas, 77027.

Good afternoon, Chairs and member chair and members of the commission.

This is staff person Samantha Delion.

I submit item uh B for your consideration and possible action for the nomination of Inwood Manor, located at 3711 San Felipe Street, to be nominated on the National Register of Historic Places.

Inwood Manor is a 16-story new formula multifamily residential building facing north on its triangular 2.86 X acre parcel in Houston's upscale River Oaks neighborhood, and was completed and opened in 1964 as an apartment building before converting to a condominium in 1977.

Designed by acclaimed local firm new house and tailor architects, the recruit form plan building utilizes a flat roof, original exposed arch concrete frame, original aluminum frame windows, and a basement foundation.

In addition to the residential tower, the property includes its original surface parking lots, original highly stylized landscaping, and a non-original swimming pool with original pool house.

When Inwood Manor opened in 1964, advertised amenities included a closed circuit security system, restaurant, beauty salon, private gardens, swimming pool, concierge, housekeeping, and maintenance services.

Despite alterations to the swimming pool and residential units, Inwood Manor retains all aspects of its integrity.

Inwood Manor is eligible at the local level under criterion C in the area of architecture with a uh with a period of significance of 1964, the year construction finished.

Staff recommends that the HAC support the nomination of the first city national bank to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C in the area of architecture at the local level of significance.

Chair and members of the Commission, I am available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I will open the public hearing.

I do not have anyone signed to speak on this item, but if you would like to speak, this is the time to announce yourself.

I'm not hearing anyone.

I'm going to close the public hearing.

Are there any questions or concerns from members of the commission?

Well, I have one actually.

Does that mean that the facade will uh you cannot uh change the facade anymore?

Or is that something that they can still change and then so if that's the case, then what are we nominating you for?

Uh well, the National Registry has no protection.

Um it's it's simply a recognition of that it meets certain uh national standards, uh whether it is based on local state or national significance.

Um this does not make them a landmark in the city of Houston, for instance.

This is simply um letting it's uh more of a referral to let us know that this work resource um it will be submitted for uh application to the National Registry, and it's really just to get our comments about it.

I think as as preservationists, we can ostensibly assume that this would become a tax credit project if there's interest in redeveloping it or updating it.

And then the Secretary Standards, Secretary of the Interior Standards would apply, and it would and they're fairly rigorous at both the state and the federal review level.

So there's some not protection, but what I can say uh because I have done research on this building and I'm aware what's what what the work is intended to occur and the um when you're doing a tax credit project, the work that you have to abide by in many ways would be even more strict than what we um look at here.

So uh to answer your question, it doesn't keep someone from tearing down a structure, many structures on National Registry actually are are are removed, but it does add a certain um aw make people aware of its significance, which in many cases helps to save things.

And um, but for those projects that do participate in the historic tax credit program, uh you have to follow very rigorous uh national standards from the the Park Service.

And I think, Commissioner Jones, I know a lot of your work is in this in this area of oversight, but it's um nothing inappropriate can happen to the building.

Um in that in this thing, this actually also is both interior focus, not just exterior for for those programs.

But um, okay, so I'm not hearing any uh concerns for the nomination.

We'll move on to item C.

And uh item C is a consideration of and possible action on referral to the Texas Historical Commission for nomination to the National Registry of Historic Places for the Margaret Root Brown College at 610 Main Street, Houston, Texas, 7705.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission.

This is Staff Person Smantha Delione again.

I submit item C for your consideration and possible action on the nomination of Margaret Root Brown College, located at Rice University 6100 Main Street, to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Open in 1965, Rice University's Margaret Root Brown College, named for its benefactor, is a residential college urgently built to house the influx of women pursuing higher education in the 1950s and 60s.

Built in response to the enrollment of women exceeding the capacity of other existing residence halls.

Brown College also represents a building typology known as the University Residential Tower or High Rise Dormitory.

A trend of building high-rise residence halls first began in universities outside of Texas in the 1950s and 1960s in response to the c to the spike in college enrollment after World War II and subsequent shortages in student housing.

High-rise designs allowed universities can to conserve land by building vertically, a departure from traditional residence hall plans.

Brown College was the first high-rise dormitory in Houston.

Its design in a triple mass stout H plan, migrated noise issues, a frequent problem in later high-rise residence halls.

While co-educational today, at its opening, Brown College enabled more women to live on campus and access the educational resources and social activities available to their male counterparts.

Margaret Root Brown College is now the only building that can convey the history of women's education at Rice University.

Staff recommends that the HAC support the nomination of Margaret Root Brown College to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A in the area of education and criterion C in the area of architecture at the local level of significance.

Chairs and members of the Commission, I am available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time I'll open the public hearing.

I do have a speaker signed up for this item.

Would Emily Ryan please approach the podium?

And if you could restate your name for the record.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the commission.

My name is Emily Ryan.

I am speaking on behalf of Preservation Houston in support of the National Register nomination for Margaret Root Brown College agenda item C.

Preservation Houston also fully supports the National Register nominations for the first city national bank and in wood matter manner agenda items A and B.

But I wanted to speak personally on this nomination as a former student and resident of the building.

Margaret Root Brown College is a surviving example of the legacy of the women's education history at Rice.

Although female students had been admitted to Rice University from its founding, it was not until the opening of the Mary Gibbs Jones College in 1957 that women were allowed to live on campus.

The later opening of the Margaret Root Brown College in 1965 allowed for the expansion and continued support of women residing on campus and pursuing higher level education at Rice University.

Because the National Park Service has determined that Jones College no longer retains sufficient integrity to qualify for individual listing.

It is the last residential building on campus that not only maintains much of its original architectural design and integrity, but also continues to preserve and reflect this important history, inspiring future students at Rice University.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public like to speak on this item?

Not hearing anyone, I'm going to close the public hearing.

Commission members, are there any questions on this on this project as well?

Not hearing any concerns.

Um again, I think we we're very supportive and um look forward to these projects uh being a um uh advance for um the final reviews for national registry with this we will move on to item D.

Which is a consideration and possible action on the reclassification of 320 East 20th Street, Eastern Texas 7708 in Houston Heights East Historic District from contributing to non-contributing.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission.

This is Yasmine Arslan.

Today I submit for your consideration agenda item D at 320 East 20th Street.

The property is a contributing commercial property constructed circa 1930 per inventory.

HCAD shows a build date of 1945 for the building on the site.

It is located in the Houston Heights East Historic District.

In 2008, when the Heights East Historic District was established by City Council resolution 2008-4, the district inventory labeled 320 East 20th, a potentially contributing PC commercial 1930 structure.

The PC label likely stemmed from the main building originally covered in 105 wood siding, being clad over with aluminum siding.

Documents applied from the Harris County archive includes a block book record that shows that a permit for construction was issued in Nova November or December of 1944 for construction at the site.

The applicant is proposing to amend the classification of this structure from contributing to non-contributing.

The director felt that the agent has a strong case to be presented in front of the historical and archaeological commission.

The agent, Ms.

Davis has signed up to speak, and there are other um speakers as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With this, I will open the public hearing.

I do have a number of people signed up to speak on this item, and I'll begin with uh with Becky Davis.

And if you could also restate your name in the microphone for the for the public record, good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission.

My name is Becky Davis, and I'm speaking on behalf of Patsy Kelly, the owner.

I'm requesting that 320 East 20th Street be right reclassified as non-contributing.

The city often references McAllister's field guide to American homes.

McAllister marks 1940 as the end of the pre-war craftsman and period revival era, stating that after World War II, styles and lifestyles changed dramatically.

That aligns with the Heights guidelines generally with a period of significance of generally the 40s.

The data, about 96% of the contributing resources were built by 1940, and roughly 99% were built by 1945.

320 East 20th Street does not fit that story.

Built in 45 and 46, it's a small two-story post-war vernacular commercial building.

Essentially a yard office store for an adjacent lumber yard and warehouse use.

The gable front massing, full width projecting flat canopy, plain symmetrical facade, and minimal trim are hallmarks of auto-oriented utilitarian construction that proliferated after war outside the district's design design vocabulary.

Guidance and precedent point the same way.

The Heights style guidelines describe contributing commercial buildings for the most part as brick or stone masonry, which is true of contributing commercial resources in Heights East.

While a few post-1945 institutional buildings, churches, the Masonic Lodge, are masonry and may contribute for their civic topology and crafted detailing, they are not an appropriate part uh appropriate point of comparison for a utilitarian yard office.

Three motion to grant the speaker more time.

Is there a second?

Jones will second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Please proceed.

Okay.

Um 320 East 20th is not masonry and does not embody the district's commercial design language.

There's also an inventory error.

The listing shows 1930, but research confirms 1945 to 1946, placing it post-war and outside the period of significance.

Consistent with heights practice, post-commercial buildings that don't reflect the distance district's vocabulary are treated as non-uh contributing.

Also, if you look at the context area, 20th Street is a commercial corridor.

And there are there's only there is a contributing building commercial building on 20th Street, but it was actually built in 19 uh post 1950.

So we're not quite sure what how it got onto the contributing, but in summation, the reclassification corrects the record, keeps the inventory credible, and protects what the district was designed to preserve.

And I respectfully ask for your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I don't see there are any questions at this time, so I do have three or three more speakers signed up for the item.

Um the next uh speaker who signed up is Becky Davis.

And this will be followed by uh Patsy Kelly.

If you could reset your name in the microphone for the record, thank you.

My name is Patsy Kelly.

I'm the current owner.

My um husband was born at this location and lived there most of his life.

His grandfather built this location.

And that was in 1945, and the lumber yard went out of business in 74 when the grandmother died.

Anyway, I just wanted to say I'm in support of this reclassification because it's obviously an error.

It was not built in 1930, and it's not contributing to the neighborhood.

Big thoroughfare, buses, yardmen.

It's it's a major thoroughfare.

Anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker will be Patsy Kelly.

Followed by Kyle Kelly.

If you could pre-state your name in the rec for their in the microphone for the record.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kyle Kelly.

Um I grew up at the property, um, lived in the heights most of my life.

Uh I do own property in the heights two blocks from this location on 320 East 20th, and uh I support the reclassification.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Amy Gray, and I am a neighbor.

I live at 1842 Cortland.

And last Sunday, all the neighbors had a meeting about this property, and we all agreed that we would like it to be reclassified as non-contributing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the room to speak on this item?

Okay, with that, I'm going to close the public hearing and um Commissioners Authority questions about this application.

Um questions for legal, please.

Commissioner Weed Howard Jackson.

Is there without having been able to get through the whole packet?

Is there proof that we know the date of construction?

Other than my understanding is that there is uh the permits in the HCAD um history.

Uh reflect when the application was made.

That supports 1945.

I believe staff is in agreement with that.

So the abstract so um I'm sorry, I'm trying to get the exact language.

So from the Harris County archives, we we did get um proof that it was in 19 built in 1945.

Um the block book record, which was um attached in the staff report does uh have that specifically November, December of 1944.

Oh, and um, I'm sorry if I may.

Um I was not on the site visit, but um the inspector did confirm that the building looked like it was built in the 1940s.

Mr.

Yeah.

Yeah, actually, my question is related to that.

Uh so is the site inspector at uh this meeting right now?

No, he's not.

But but there are photos from the site visit if you're okay.

Because what I would like to know is that uh in 1944, there were hardly any more buildings built with uh let's say shiplet or windows with uh hung with weights.

So I would like to know the windows I see looks like one over one, but are they actually weight-bearing windows?

Or are they one of those more modern ones compared to those?

Because I'm still skeptical about, I don't think what 1930 is correct, because if you look at the HCAT record, every other house is 1930 in in in historic uh HCAT records because they don't have history that goes back further.

But uh in 1944-45, uh I would like to see some of those materials that are if they are used to be being building older that I would like the confirmation that they didn't they do not exist.

That's for one question.

So who did the site visit?

Um uh Pete and Roman.

And they're both not here.

Um but to just say that the 1944 or 1945 date did not come from HCAT, it came from Harris County archives from the block book record.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Right.

And yes, I mean my understanding is it's only the front building that we were even talking about, the rest of the structures on the site are also the they are not contributing or or even potentially contributing.

Yes.

And they're they're they um it's only this front uh storefront that we're actually discussing.

How large was the original building?

I'm sorry?

Both buildings are contrib are labeled as contributing.

Like a warehouse and building.

So it's it's attached, like it's not they're not separate buildings, they're attached, but we believe that the that it the addition or like the attached buildings were built later and not in the 40s.

No.

No, okay.

I'm sorry, I took this from um Roman as he's out, so just trying to catch up.

Would you like her to come in?

Sure.

Why don't we uh ask a question?

Just we're just I have a question for the owner, please.

Okay.

And you could just restate your name.

We're just trying I I understood that only the front structure was the potentially contributing structure and the rest of the structures were not labeled as contributing or potential.

This is Patsy Kelly, the owner.

320, East 20th, and I is comprises of three lots.

All are listed as contributing.

Understood.

Even though they shouldn't be.

Because they weren't built in the 1930s.

So thank you.

And I've got the proof.

I mean, these people kept stuff.

I'm trying to get rid of 80 years of stuff.

The abstract on page 7.

I provided that, and it's listed as December 22nd, 1944.

Now that other got other documents that um show that it was owned by previous owner.

It was vacant land.

Yeah, it was a vacant land.

There was nothing there before they started digging, moving dirt around in 1944 December.

Okay, thank you.

Does staff have um I mean this isn't a COA, so we don't have a staff recommendation.

Has staff discussed this?

Do they have a a uh an opinion?

If I can get legal's uh opinion on on this, um what I understood is the reclassification.

Um the director is either approves that it comes to commission or does not.

Um and and as I mentioned, the director felt that the agent has a strong case to be presented in front of the Historical and Archaeological Commission, and that is why we're here.

You're welcome.

Yeah, I think the two the two basic criteria, at least two criteria are that um it was misclassified as an earlier construction day, which it is it's proven not to, and also that the date of construction is just outside of the period of significance for this particular district.

That that's what my understanding.

That's okay.

Mr.

Cosgar, you a question.

I do have a question or a comment that seems to me to fall more under the idea that we would allow them to demolish the improvements rather than reclassify three lots in the historic district boundaries.

Because if if the if the structure is outside the period of significance and we have proof of that, then I believe the commission would be sympathetic to granting a demolition request.

But I don't understand the need to reclassify the lots just for that purpose.

Well, I don't know the intention of the applicants, although I can imagine as you as you say.

But I don't if it's my question for Kim is that if a project was potentially contributing, it could not be demolished outright.

I mean it would have to conform to the demolition requirements, which are quite stringent.

So I think that this is an application.

We may see another application for this property depending on how this commission votes.

But that it but essentially like it, I mean to me it would be different if I guess if the period of significance for this neighborhood extended into the 1960s, for instance, which it doesn't, this might be a different conversation than we're having at the moment, but it is um it's it the the date in the inventory is incorrect, and the period of significance ends really in the beginning of the 1940s and not and not extending beyond.

It doesn't mean that you can't have something exceptional uh after that date, and there are examples of that in the districts here in Houston.

Um but and I mean I'm not sure about Commissioner McNeil.

I have fine memories of visiting lumber stores as an architect.

It's uh I like I you know, but I'm not sure everyone is like that.

So um but I still enjoyed today.

Well, I I would argue that yeah, that the period of significance is intended as a guideline.

Um, and that this building has stood for um you know the better part of 70 years, and and that it it uh would be considered contributing were we to assess the district now.

So I to me there needs to be a stronger argument for um declassifying it than just the actual date of construction.

I think it meets all the criteria for reclassification and that it was misclassified and it was built outside the period of significance.

To me, it's a pretty straightforward vote.

I will entertain a motion.

I move that we I don't know if it's uh uh a move that we support reclassification of this property based on the fact that it was misclassified originally and that it was built out of the period of significance.

Is there a second?

So I'm not seeing a second, so if without a second, um I'll withdraw my motion if there's no second um I guess my next question is so staff hasn't made a recommendation, but um the director has um in bringing it to us, but I'm not sure what um if there's any more action on this item.

If there's not a motion to accept this, I would recommend you take another action on the item if the action is to disapprove the director's recommendation and disapprove the reclassification.

This is a zoning matter, remember this goes forward to city council because it changes the resolution that designated this, so it has to go forward um with a report from you one way or the other.

Is there just say this?

Is there a reason to defer this act this potential action given there are some questions about windows and other aspects of the process?

That was just what I was about to recommend because the two critical people that I would like to hear from who visited a site are not here today.

I would like to see what kind of historic materials that are to be basically with this reclassification, the intent is to tear every building down.

Uh if you look at picture number on page five of the presentation, I I can understand the the middle picture of the middle portion and the left portion.

Because if you look at it, it looks more like a warehouse with the windows all being horizontal panel.

But the the building on the right looks very historical in the sense that their windows are one over one hung vertically uh two scale for a construction that is built during the 19 even 20s, 30s and 40s, very, very craftsman-like.

So I would like to see whether there this construction is actually has a lot of historical materials because that inf may impact how I vote.

So I would suggest that I will make a motion now to defer because I would like to hear the site visit report, basically.

Understood.

Is there is there a second?

Commissioner Stavas seconds.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, that item is deferred.

We will now move on to item E.

Terrence, consideration of and possible action on certificates of appropriateness applications.

Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners, and the public.

I am staff member Terrence Jackson.

And today staff recommends the following items for action per staff recommendations in one motion.

Items E4702 Euclid Street New Conction Garage Woodland Heights approval.

Item E5 81 Bernard Street, new construction of a single family residence, and first Montrose Commons approval.

E6 122 Rutland Street Alteration addition in the Houston Heights West Subdivision.

Reproval approval with conditions.

Item E7 925 Courtland Street Alteration of siding trim doors windows porch or balcony and the roof in the Houston Heights South Historic District.

Recommendation approval with conditions.

Item E8 309 Baylon Bayling Alteration addition in the Woodland Heights Historic District recommendation approval.

Item E9 201 West 15th Street Alteration in the Houston Heights West Historic District Recommendation Approval with Conditions.

Item E12 2040 West Gray Street Alteration signage a landmark in the River River Oaks Theater and Shopping Center recommendation approval.

Item E13 1050 Yale Street Alteration signage in the Houston Heights South Historic District recommendation approval.

Item E14 1225 Oxford Street Alteration Adition Doors Porch or Bony and Roof in the Houston Heights East Historic District recommendation approval 2010 E15 2010 State Street New Conction of a single family resid residence in the old sixth ward recommendation approval E sixteen 516 West Main Street alteration addition in the first Montrose Commons Historic District recommendation approval and item E17 1020 East 16th Street alteration of doors and others in the Norhill Historic District recommendation denial of a COA and issuance of a COR.

The planning and development department request approval of all staff recommendations for these proceeding items.

Items proposed for individual consideration, therefore are items E1, E2, E3, E10, and E11.

We are here for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Terrence.

Commission members, are there any of the projects on cons the proposed consent list you would like to pull for individual consideration?

I'd like to pull number eight.

Okay.

Um I do have a few uh folks in the audience who signed up to speak on items on this list of consent.

Um items nine and sixteen, and item five.

Um if you support staff's recommendation, there's no need uh to bring this for individual consideration.

If you don't support the recognition from staff, you you have the ability at this time to pull this for an individual discussion and presentation.

Uh we have some members in the public that would like to pull item E9.

Okay, thank you, Terrence.

Okay, so the consent agenda proposed by staff and their recommendations are for um items E4 E5 E six E seven E twelve, E13, E14, E15, E16, and E17.

That is correct.

Commission members, um is there a motion to accept this modified list of consent items and the staff's recommendation for these items?

Commissioner Yep.

Yep.

So moves.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Stavas seconds.

Will it Commissioner Stab a second?

All in favor of the consent.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, those items pass.

And we will move on to item one.

Thank you.

Chair Buchek and member of the commission.

My name is Yasmin Arsline.

I submit for your consideration.

Agenda item E1 at 410 Main Street.

The property includes a historic 3,960 square foot two-story brick front commercial structure situated on a 2036 square foot interior lot.

This is a contributing brick front commercial structure constructed circa 1877, located in the Main Street Market Square Historic District.

The applicant proposes to add a new balcony and to restore the historic facade as part of the Main Street beautification project.

Staff recommends approval with the following conditions.

Transoms need to be included in the design.

Balcony to be as wide as canopy shown on Sanborn.

Remove vertical and horizontal joints on second floor facade.

The agent Sam Gianukas is here and has signed up to speak.

Thank you.

Under additional photographs of the proposed design, you're selecting through currently.

Are there additional drawings that are we're about to receive?

I just want to cycle through the different images.

Can you go to the elevations?

We have this as front elevation, and then the next one is a side elevation.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, at this time I'll open the public hearing.

I do have a speaker sign up for this item.

Uh two.

Um the first is Sam Genokis.

Um the second speaker is Ann Cullus.

Uh Vastikis.

Anne's gonna go first.

Okay, that's fine.

Document camera.

You could restate your name for the record, thank you.

Oh hi.

Uh my name is Ann Callis Vistakis, and I thank you for your consideration for the facade and balcony project for 410 Main Street.

Um, a little bit about myself.

This building has been owned by my family since the 70s.

It was given to my husband and I in 1997 to fix up and live in.

At the time, the building was in terrible shape, and pretty much all of downtown was a ghost town.

As newlyweds, my husband and I were young and didn't have a lot of money, and the prospect of an old fixing up an old building to live in was a great idea.

We love the building, and we're looking forward to making it our home.

However, the building was too big of an undertaking for two twenty-somethings at the time, so we ended up leasing it to the Jones Bar.

For the last 30 years, we have weathered the storm of good times and bad.

Some years we're able to rent out our building, but there are many years that it stayed vacant, not by choice, but because the economy in that area couldn't support it.

Our little building has weathered the storm too.

She's been many things in her lifetime.

A tailor shop, a cafe, an arcade, a club, and even a vaudeville theater at one point.

Her facade has gone through many changes as well.

We are looking forward to sprucing her up and bringing her back to her former beauty.

We're ecstatic to see the new developments and plans for the main street promenade.

And I'm so happy to have the opportunity to work with the city to make Main Street a desirable and vibrant destination.

We are applying for the grant to rejuvenate our facade and specifically to add a balcony.

I chose three similar buildings in the historic district and immediate vicinity to show that the balcony would be a viable option.

At 310 Main Street.

This building has a balcony now, but didn't have one historically, or even in 1980, when this book, the last The Last of the Past, Euston Architecture, 1846 through 1915, was written by William Scott Field for the Greater Euston Preservation Alliance.

This shows that before there was absolutely no structure in the front.

It was just it was a plain facade and now it has a balcony.

This is the balcony that we are most trying to emulate with our building, both in size and style.

Motion grant the speaker more time, two minutes.

Is there a second?

All in favor.

I please proceed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's exactly one block away from our building, also Front's Main Street.

There are many similarities between the two.

Another building that is very close by is 1912 Prairie Street.

This is the shoe market building.

This is another historic building right around the corner that did not have a balcony historically, but it was built in the 1990s.

And I have photos of it before the balcony was there.

Another one that I think is very interesting is 419 Travis Street.

This is the I think maybe the L Big Bad at one time.

This one originally had a canopy overhang, but now it has a balcony.

And I'm using that as an example that the canopy overhangs are fine, but the balcony is a more viable option for us.

I believe that a balcony would vastly improve not just the facade of our building, but would make the 400 block of Main Street appear more inviting.

More shade during the day to make it more walkable and more lit up activity outside the building at night to make the area more appealing, safe, and vibrant.

And I thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Not hearing any questions, we'll we'll proceed to the next speaker for Sam Genukis.

Hello, Sam Janukas Creole Design.

Uh I don't know how to follow that.

I mean, she pretty much hit all the points.

I did a really fine job.

The um uh when she brought the building to me, uh the face of the building you can see is can we show that?

Um your report, I think it's page four of 19.

Uh the existing building is is really in bad state.

Uh so we want to take it back to the original and and restore the original surrounds on the window and and really uh bring it back to what it was initially.

We're the the awning that we're attaching or the balcony that we're attaching is freestanding for the most part.

So you could take that off if you wanted to go back to the original structure and and not uh damage that original structure at all.

So I think that's key for you guys to know as well that we're not doing something to the front of this building that's gonna affect the building for the future.

Um but right now it's a restaurant and bar, and it has evolved from a clothing store to a five and dime to all these different things.

And and now uh right now the restaurant and the bar would like an upstairs space, which I think would be bring a lot of fun to Main Street.

And uh since this beautification of Main Street was important, I felt like that this was a good uh fix for this building.

Thank you, Sam.

Are there any questions?

Uh Mr.

McNeil.

Mr.

Jane because have you seen staff's recommendations?

Um on the conditions of your approval.

I would I was confused by the staff recommendation because they wanted us to go back with, I believe, an awning that was in a photo that they had given us.

Um be as wide as the canopy shown in the sandborn.

Um but it is about the same width as that.

Yeah, I don't know that there's not any difference.

Would you object any of those approval conditions?

No, uh no, as long as we have that upstairs balcony and are able to restore the front of the building to what it originally was, I'm good with it.

Yeah, I think it's the same width.

I'm gonna sit down and look at it again, but I think it's the same width.

I have a quick question.

Mr.

Couch.

So for the for the design of the eyebrows over the windows and the the pattern of the windows on the doors on the ground floor, is there documentation for that or is that something that you have imagined?

It it is there's documentation for it.

And behind that screening that you see there, you can see all of that cornice work on those windows.

So we're gonna do our best to replicate it as closely as possible where it's damaged.

Hopefully it won't all be damaged.

Because I'm looking at some of these pictures like this one, the black and white one when it says golden pot, and it doesn't have any of that kind of design on it.

I'm just wondering if if there's a mark on the brick where there was like a cast iron kind of hood, like what you're showing.

I do think the building's been modified heavily over many, many years, because even in this image right here, it's been modified from when I looked at the application from it's a it's because it's a much older building.

Do you know when the storefront was put on?

I mean, I'm assuming the original building was inset, like most of the buildings on Main Street and from the picture.

I I don't I don't think it's it's in set about eighteen inches is all.

Um the doors, the three doors that are on the front uh are only in set about eighteen inches.

So on the historical the tailor picture looks like it's inset like eight feet.

I mean I'm just asking if you know when I mean obviously someone has moved that storefront out of the yeah.

I mean but it's been there like it is you know, until we rip into it and figure out what's behind there, it's hard to say.

Uh but I think that's the same.

I mean they wouldn't be willing to return it, the the original.

Absolutely.

I mean, because it's kind of cool.

I mean, I always like the idea of the personal thing.

The recesses, the wood recesses, the storefront, right?

On the interior of the building, you haven't seen any tile on the floor or pulled up the.

No, all the interior has been pretty much uh torn out and and um and and probably speak better to that.

But the right now the way they did the front elevation, you really can't see, you can barely see the upper windows through the grating or that uh mesh that they have there.

But it's gonna be hard to tell completely what's back there until you rip it off.

Sam, it looked to me like the building again it's been modified greatly and many times over many, many years it appeared.

Um now, of course, the sandborne maps, like if for instance, if the if the lower doors and window wall system were closer to the front, say 18 inches back only from the right-of-way, that'll be on the sandborne map.

Like that that'll be recorded over through through time.

And I do I do believe there was a there was one at least sent one sandborne um in the application.

And maybe we could blow it up.

But um my I guess my same, my small question was on your proposed elevation.

There's some vertical and horizontal lines that look like stucco.

My question is this building appeared to be originally a brick building.

You you referred to you you can see like behind the slip cover that's there, that you can see older brickwork and ornamentation.

Um are you able to bring the brick back?

Um or this is something you'll find once you dig into this.

I believe it's something yeah, I believe it's something we're gonna find when we when we get there.

And and whether we need expansion joints or or whether there are expansion joints on there, who knows until we get are able to pull that off and see it.

But our intention is to restore it, and Ann's intention is to restore it back to what it originally looked like and add that front balcony that is independent of the building, can be removed in the future if necessary.

Or if somebody wants to, I can't can't imagine they would.

But but if it were brick, it wouldn't need expansion joints if it was solid brick masonry wall and that's still in intact and still in good shape.

So I do have a question as well.

Okay, go ahead.

Commissioner, I think.

So Sam, if I look at the uh rendition.

Uh so I guess the middle window?

Yes.

Does that double as a dole?

Yes.

To access the balcony on the second floor.

That's a proposed alteration.

Yep.

Okay.

Well, I think I'm following on from uh Commissioner Couch's position.

Number one, the cornishes, that is just another autistic rendition, right?

We don't have evidence of that.

Actual evidence of that.

Or do we have to?

Do we have to plus the the cornish and the window sill, if you will?

The dental work is there for sure at the top.

Yeah, we can see that.

And come on up here.

I don't see that on any of the pictures.

I'm happy to meet you out there one day if you'd like to and look at it.

Yeah, yeah.

Um I'm gonna look at these pictures that you can see.

She's gonna look at see.

I have the the poor facade is not in very good shape right now, and it was really hard to tell.

I only have records of it from the 70s personally, of what I've seen.

Um the picture I have, which is this one, is um it does show the dental work, but it's a plain document camera window.

This was taken in uh May 1976.

Yeah, it looks like it wasn't a fancy building.

Right, but I think that there you can we confirm a staff the original date of this building that's in that that the original uh construction date of this building.

1877.

So what I'm saying is this this picture reflects not does this does this was not, I don't believe this was built in 1877.

I'll say, I mean, I'll I've I will wait to find out, let's say, what you discover, but um I think the building has gone through multiple changes throughout the years and reflects different time periods.

Um the 77 picture looks like somebody maybe had removed some stuff on the around those windows, because I can't imagine the windows would be just storefront windows like that on that second level.

I would have thought 1877, they were very good creative craftsmen at that time.

And it's a little bit better than this rectangular thing that I see up there.

But the question is what level do we allow the artistic rendition to go forward because right now it looks very artistic to me, but I'm not sure it's authentic.

Can I ask staff to turn to page 8 of 19 on our report and show the 1923 photos?

I think part of this application is I understand it is that is that if they're allowed to dig into this facade, they can find evidence to support what they're trying to do, and that uh staff could arbitrate that evidence if they find the evidence, even if it's uh distressed, but you can still see ghosting or other outlines or change of materials.

Um do you have any further further commentary about the image or just uh just that's the same as a no, I think this is just an earlier photo that we can look at to see what ornamentation may or may not have been on the building, but still recognizing that this is a change facade from 1877.

Yes, I I think it's uh it's also a a renovated facade as well.

And and we want to bring it back to uh a building that would have some surrounds on the windows, something like I in my drawings that I show.

I mean, that's that's our intention.

We don't want it to be just very bland uh when we're done with this building.

And and maybe we need to find some other buildings that were done in 1877 and and prove up to you guys that these surrounds were used then and and use those surrounds, but or keep digging to see if we can find photos of this existing building, which I'm happy to do.

Right.

We have a few more questions, Sam.

Um my experience is if you pull things off, you'll find evidence of what it actually was.

There will still be a little bit of ghosting or some outline, even if it's missing, that will still indicate it was there.

Right.

And that would be an example of proof to to justify such a position.

So Commissioner question followed by Commissioner Staba.

On um while we're on this picture, and because the staff recommended the transoms, I just wanted to to have you clarify for us.

The rendering shows the proposed balcony above these transom windows.

That's right, because you need to walk out of that second floor center doorway to get onto that balcony.

So the transoms will be uh underneath the the uh the balcony as you walk by, you'll be able to see the transoms above.

And they would be the same four that we see there in that photo.

I mean, you've you've got what looks like paneling above the first floor windows.

Will those become the four transom windows?

Those are the transoms, yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

So they'll they'll reflect the four that are that are gonna show up when we pull the soap cover off.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

And again, I'm happy to have Pete Stockton or anybody else out there to visually look at it as we go through it.

Uh because we uh Ann's intention is to make it you know like it once was actually like it was, but also beautify the area because that is the whole purpose of having the promenade and you know making it more walkable, making it more bright, especially, because that that's one of the the things that are really wrong with four the 400 block of Main Street, it's very dark.

It's not alive looking.

People are afraid to walk down there sometimes.

And I think having a balcony, having activity outside where people can see other people, I think it's gonna make it more appealing and make people more comfortable about walking around.

Thank you.

I believe.

Okay.

Are there any other questions?

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to explore what you just said a little bit.

Um I like the idea that you we want to tear down the that this late edit on facade to find out what we think is a ghosting of what it actually was.

So how do we play that out?

That means do we just say we're giving them a COA to remove that front facade and then come back with the show us the proof and then we can have a better, uh closer answer.

Because I really have I'm really having a hot time right now just approving something based on I'm sorry, madam, but just because of the beautification, this is a historic b district.

I want to be true to the historic nature of of that.

I do not want to see Disneyland on Main Street either.

I understand and I agree.

That's why we need to see as much as possible what are the defining features of this building at that time.

Commissioner Yep, what well Mr.

Cosmo would you have a question?

I mean, I would be supportive of the application and just having allowing staff to evaluate the property.

Like once you get it taken apart a little, just to la instead of having to come back in front of the commission.

I mean, if staff goes out and says, look, there's the ghosting, and then I'm okay with that.

What am I approving?

I'm approving this facade then.

If we if we vote on, then I'm approving this picture.

But I'm not able to approving this picture.

Well, I think that the I'm gonna before we vote, uh if if there's a motion, I'm gonna ask staff to restate their motion, because they have conditions on the motion, so it's not actually just what we see.

Yasmin, could you just restate the um the clarifications that the condition that staff wants to have.

Staff recommends approval with the following conditions.

Transoms need to be included in the design.

Balcony to be as wide as can it be shown on sandborn, removal of vertical and horizontal joints on second floor facade, simplify the storefront per historic documentation.

So what we see in the application is not actually what staff is signing off on.

But there is some additional we have allowed projects to uh proceed to uncover more, and then sometimes they do come back to us.

But if if they can justify this, I think they're asking permission to add a balcony, number one.

And I think there is some um time is an issue because there is a grant program on the street.

It is it is specifically timed for an event next year that everyone is trying to get uh to get it ready for and you know also it's part of this closure of the uh vehicle uh on vehicle uh vehicles on this section of the streets to promote a pedestrian-friendly location.

Obviously, back before conditioning, every building had either a canopy or a balcony because it was too hot to walk outside without that passive shade.

So I think the question before this body is do we support having a balcony?

The balcony may need to be simplified because if we you know if we can't we can't find a photograph or something that shows what it is, like Commissioner Couch, often you you know you we try to justify these things based on can we prove it was this way?

And if not, can can we simplify it like we we see a lot of structures in Galveston that have balconies like that that are simplified, made out of tubular materials and other things.

And I believe there's a lot of evidence underneath that slip cover that's there that will can justify many things, but it can't be revealed until they start that project.

And I think so this is a little bit different than a normal project because we don't know the end result on day one, but it will be a bit of a journey, it appears to me.

So I'm I'm ready to make a motion that we accept stack's recommendation.

And if there are a lot of changes once they start the process, I would like if we could have one of us review it with the staff, like Dominic, maybe, to make sure that it's not going too far afield of what the evidence is showing.

Okay.

Is there a a second?

Second.

Can you restate the the motion again?

Compet because I'm still looking at the picture in your motion.

So what is the motion says but what I said was staff recommendation and their conditions are the transoms need to be included in the design.

The first condition, the second condition is the balcony is as wide as the canopy shown on the sandboard.

The third condition is remove the vertical and horizontal joints on the second floor facade, and the fourth condition is simplify the storefront per historic documentation.

And I think number four is where we need to do some more research to find something because I I think that this is a little bit too creative.

And they need to do something that either has evidence or tone it down.

I agree.

And I would like if if they get to that point that they consult with one of us along with the staff.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

Motion passes.

Mr.

Yap, I'm happy to meet you out there anytime.

I would love to go and let me know with this lousy stuff taken off and then see what is underneath.

All right, happy to meet you there.

We'll now move on to item number two.

Chair Bouchet Buch and members of the Commission.

This is Yasmin again.

I submit for your consideration agenda item E2 at 3312 Beauchamp Street in Woodland Heights Historic District.

The property is a single family 1,311 square foot, one-story residence situated on an interior lot.

It is a contributing bungalow built circa 1920.

The applicant proposes to build a two-story addition behind the existing structure.

The existing living space of the property is 1,311 square feet.

The proposed addition will increase this by 1,385 square feet on the first floor and 1,407 square feet on the second floor.

The applicant is also proposing for the roof to be composite shingle with the six over 12 um pitch.

There's um I'm sorry, the two-story addition will also include an attached two-story um garage.

The eve height of the existing structure is 10 feet and two inches, while the highest proposed eve height for the addition will be 22.

The highest ridge height of the addition will be at 29 feet and four inches.

The house currently has brick exterior.

The applicant proposes removing the brick and restoring the original look of the existing house with stucco.

The first floor addition will also have a stucco exterior with a brick skirt at the crawl space.

The second floor addition will be clad in smooth cementitious siding.

All windows will be inset and recessed.

Staff recommends approval with conditions to remove the proposed screen porch located at the front from the proposed design and remove the brick skirt detail.

Staff has received two letters of support from the public that are attached.

And we have the agent here signed up to speak.

Sam Gianukus.

Thank you.

Thank you, Yasmin.

I will open the public hearing at this time.

And the first speaker I have signed up is Sam Ginukis.

Followed by Patrick McConnell.

Uh Sam Janukas Creole Design.

We would like we uh have worked real hard on this house to try to have everything one story on the neighbor's side.

Um we have a master suite on the on the neighbor on the right side.

Um and keep the two-story massing down the center of the lot, basically.

It has a two-story garage currently that's in really really bad shape that we're gonna demo.

Um, and so we we have a master on the first level, we have a swimming pool, and then we wanted to do the screen porch in order to block this basic view and and to have the pool protected also.

And uh that is the purpose of the screen porch.

We're about 20 foot back from the front corner of the house, um, and about 40 feet back from the front property line.

So we're pretty far back.

And if you look at the 3D rendering we did, um here.

It's um not that one, but the one that we did where we dropped it in the the um it's on the screen.

Oh, there you go.

That is that's a 3D image of the of the screen porch, and you can see straight through the screen porch.

It's not like we have louver panels or something to block it, but we we basically dropped it in from on Google map to show that the the uh screen porch is not that uh prominent on this particular house.

There I've I've gotten screen porches passed a number of times on the side of addition of house.

Matter of fact, in the hearing today, y'all actually on consent agenda are moving a house 11 feet over in order to do a screen porch.

So you know, last month y'all did a glass enclosure that was almost to the front of the property line.

So I felt like that this was very very subtle, and you can see straight through it.

It's not unsightly at all.

Thank you, Sam.

Sam, would you consider I I guess my only um or my my chief concern with the porch there is is just the roof line.

I mean, it's really busy there with the existing roof, plus the hip of the addition.

I mean, would you consider a flat roof over that?

Yeah.

To make it less intrusive?

I think the flat roof gets a little bit more contemporary feeling and and uh and they're harder to maintain, but uh with leaves and stuff with as many trees as we have that's why it's a real subtle uh hip roof.

I mean, I could I could sh slightly come down on the hip and and do a metal roof up there, but I'd like to be able to get the water and the leaves and all that stuff off of the roof line.

Uh so to answer your question, we could reduce the pitch overall and it just it fights with the it's really busy in my in my eyes.

Certainly look at that.

Okay, thank you, Sam.

I do have one more speaker sign up with Patrick Baconn.

Thank you, Commissioners.

We we do not have um child care this evening.

So um I appreciate you bearing with us.

Um my name is Patrick McConnell, I'm the homeowner of my very pregnant wife Laura's back there, and this is Andy.

Um we're thrilled to to have the opportunity to to try and bring back this piece of Houston and and part of the woodland heights.

Um we both have always loved old houses and and and projects, and in addition to the live oaks in the neighborhood and the school next door.

Um we're drawn to woodland heights specifically for a project like this.

Um we've done our best to work with Sam and and have both of the neighbors on either side that we've talked to a ton to make sure that they're okay, one of them being um Michael Graves, who's um head of the Civic Association and and have their support.

Uh this this house has sat vacant for some time and and been an eyesore.

Um but we we we understand that we've tried to restore as much of the original structure as possible, use materials that complement the neighborhood, uh, blend and hide the the the um the addition as much as possible behind the old house, and we feel like this design accomplishes that largely while also meeting the needs of our our growing family.

Um the screen that's caused a concern.

I understand that the busyness uh issue, but we we work with Sam to have it set back materially.

We thought that it would help provide screening, both privacy for the family and also um screening for the for the additional um uh add-on.

And um most importantly for us, my my wife is is a mosquito magnet and and that does a disservice to the term magnet.

Um she literally can't be outside and we can't play because she gets eaten alive in this town.

Um and so she is most excited about that aspect of it.

So we're pretty crushed to hear that that's the uh the the drawback or or potentially having to do away with that.

So um thank you very much for your time and and um I appreciate your consideration.

Thank you.

I have a question, please, Commissioner Couch.

So is this for the applicant or for the staff?

It's probably for Sam.

So I think it's saying here that they're gonna take the brick off the house.

Is that correct?

The the original brick, if you look at uh the submission we did made was a stuff the original house was a stucco house.

And the old guy that lived in the house was a brick man, and he bricked it up who knows over time probably.

And so it's got different brick on it.

Uh it wasn't designed to have a brick on it, so we're taking it back to the original stucco uh that it was.

And again, we're gonna have to rip the brick off, see where maybe they patched up windows or whatever, and then come back and stucco the house.

But on on on page um, I saw it here.

On this, not on the sandboard, but on this one under here, maybe.

Um on sheet four of 20.

You'll see the house uh from 1965, and it shows stucco.

And the uh and and the the way the brick is done, it has pretty big, pretty deep eaves, like two foot eaves, and and the brick just kind of runs up and stops.

And the e just kind of goes over it.

So there wasn't it wasn't framed in such a way to accept brick or anything else because it was a stucco house.

For all I know, underneath this brick is the stucco is still there.

You know.

So is there this little hood window with the little tiny window over the door?

Is that is that of stucco on it?

The one which one?

It it's a little tiny dormer on the front of the house.

Uh it does.

Okay.

All right.

Yes, it does.

Yeah.

And then for the screened in porch, is it completely detached?

It's not clear to me because the site plan doesn't show a roof on it.

And then on the plan, it looks like there's a little hyphen or something that has screens.

Just a little breezeway or bridge that goes to the to the uh screen porch.

So it is completely detached from the house.

It does not it does not intersect with the roof at all or the house.

So the breezeway doesn't have a roof over it.

Yeah, the the breezeway does.

But the it does touch the house.

But it the breezeway touches the house and it it it goes to the hip of the uh screen porch.

It's like a little bridge to it.

Again, it could be taken off the screen porch could be taken off and go back to the original house if you wanted it to be that way.

But um the way it is now, I just have like a little bridge to go over to the screen porch.

Sam in the photograph currently on display on the screens.

I see a door from inside the house that appears to lead to the screen porch, right?

Right.

Right.

Is that the portion that is connected in the area to the right is not is open to air sky?

That's right.

So um the front of the screen porch.

Leak that the like let's say that's two-thirds of the of the space between the two structures is a void and open to the sky above, and only the rear portion where the door is is what is actually enclosed.

And it looks free essentially access.

That's exactly right.

Yep.

So can you I'm sorry, can we look at page 13 of 21, the next one?

Because the roof plan there doesn't show any separation.

Is that the overhang from the portion?

House would I think we're we're like right there, Sam?

I'm not sure if there's a is that because the overhangs are just here.

Look up on the screen, maybe I have it here.

Hold on a second, I have it.

It's the second story with the roof plan or the first story roof.

Yeah, there that yes, and our drawings are incorrect.

There is a little roof connecting point right there.

You're right.

Yeah.

Because the the actual uh screen porch is about I can't see from my dimensions here, but it's about four foot from the actual house.

So that that overhang needs to be cut back on my drawing to to expose that connection.

Yes, that's incorrect.

Okay, I'll just reiterate my interest in minimizing that roof.

And I know a flat roof uplifted on for a long time.

They're a pain, but um I think aesthetically that would make the screen porch much more appealing.

Yeah, or more acceptable, I should say, since it's coming up on the front of the house.

It should be that way.

So that way that screen porch is independent.

It looks it's floating there, and then you have that connection at the back left corner of it, which I think you don't even notice it is connected, really.

Yeah, I know from the s the front view, it looked like that connection was full fully connected.

So that's why I was asking the question.

Um there any other questions?

Commissioner Gap has a question.

Uh I actually don't have a question.

I actually have a comment.

Uh this is one drawing that I've seen over the past few years that I like the most.

Oh, so I want to compliment the owners.

And you I don't only criticize, but I give credit where it's due.

So I love notwithstanding the the porch.

Okay.

I love the design of this house because it is very sensitively done and very thoughtfully done to minimize the impact on the original house.

The skinniest part is the one joining it to the back.

Right.

So thank you very much to the owners.

Uh Sam is you as well.

So uh please.

Let's see more of this in the future.

Thank you.

Well, as you know, I submit to you guys more than anybody else, and it's only taken me what, 15 or 20 years to be able to get a drawing that you like.

And I'm happy to have done that.

Uh uh, I'm learning.

I'm not a quick learner, but I'm learning.

It's a good example.

Yeah, thank you.

I I'll use this as an example in the future.

Yeah, thank y'all.

Thank you.

Any other questions or blue?

So are we the go back to the brick stuff?

Yeah.

The brick on the picture I can't really tell from 1965 if the stucco goes to the ground, but usually it does on the houses.

So what what's the why you want the brick like that?

Initially, I'm not used to doing stucco houses either, right?

We don't do a lot of stucco and use in in the heights.

And uh initially I thought, well, I'm gonna have those brick footings down there that make up the foundation of this house, so I should just go ahead and and make a skirt around there.

But then when we were talking, I thought, well, you could as you should do in the in the stucco, you know, finish it with the stucco and maybe do a drip edge or something and and do a little bit of uh uh a slope to it to keep the water away from it.

But uh and that was one of the conditions the staff asked us to do to eliminate the brick skirting.

Patrick, I think likes it.

But well we we like the aesthetic, but I mean if that's what it takes to get down.

If it means we just go to stucco all the way down and have some vents, because we're at the vents along there, then we're happy to do that.

And what what about the stucco on the addition part?

Uh the stuh the addition is all siding.

The picture I'm looking at looks like stucco.

Not all siding.

Yeah, that's right.

That's right.

The master is stucco and everything down on the lower level is stucco, and then we went to siding on the upper part.

I'm sorry.

Well, would you be okay to do the whole addition with not stucco and only keep the stucco on the house?

The I think uh yeah, I mean I think we could look at that.

I I just felt like that if you're uh if you're a grade, you're standing in the pool level, it'd be nice to have that stucco line all the way around opposed to an interruption at an inside corner, and then all of a sudden we have siding, you know.

I just felt like it's it's it it's prettier to have the stucco all the way around.

We usually we try not to imitate the the material from the old part of the house on the additions like we have them with the hardy siding and stuff like that.

So I just extrapolating the ideal.

You have a problem with having siding on the around the master.

Uh not necessarily.

I mean we talked a bunch about different options and and we set it on this.

I think that cost was a considerable option.

I think um we thought that's the same.

Siding is cheaper than stucco.

Yeah.

Well, yes, I originally understood your question to be did a whole house in stucco.

Um, you think in just that area that's that's the same.

So yeah, so the idea is the house stays stucco like what you proposed, stucco to the ground without the brick, and then the addition is all siding and not have stucco on it.

We could do that.

Can't we, Patrick?

Yeah.

Okay.

We can do that.

Okay, any other comments or questions, or is there a motion?

So I'll make a motion.

Uh I'll make a motion that we accept the project as it is with the slightly lower roof pitch on the uh screen.

Flat porch flat.

Yeah.

Once a year.

Unless it's coal tar it still.

Okay.

Can we do like a one in twelve or something?

Yeah, two and twelve, three and twelve, two and twelve.

Yeah.

Low.

We'll we'll we'll pitch it low.

Yeah, okay.

And then um stucco on the house to the ground without the skirt and no stucco on the addition.

Second.

Have a second.

Any other discussion?

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thanks, Sam.

Thank you.

Appreciate the design.

Thank you.

Any abstentions?

Moving on to item three.

Chair Buchek and members of the commission.

This is me again, Yasmin Arslan.

I submit for your consideration agenda.

Agenda item E3 at 702 Euclid Street.

The property includes a vacant 50 by 151.3 interior lot.

This is a non-contributing vacant lot located in the Woodland Heights Historic District.

The applicant is proposing to build a new two-story residence on the lot at 702 Euclid Street.

The proposal includes a new primary residence with a two-story garage and apartment in the rear of the property.

The proposed front setback is 21 feet and one and a half inch.

The proposed square footage of the new residence is 4,681 of conditioned space.

The slope for the new roof will be 8 over 12 and have an eve height of 22 feet and 4 inches.

The peak ridge for the new residents will be 33 feet and 11 inches.

The ceiling height for the first and second floor is 10 feet to be constructed using uh cement tissues smooth siding for the exterior cladding material.

Staff recommends approval with conditions that the second second floor's front wall be pushed back to align with the first floor first floor is front wall.

And for the roof pitch to be uh seven over twelve.

Staff have received three letters in opposition from the public and are attached.

And we have the agent um Sam signed up to speak.

And staff is available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Can I um clarify something that on the proposal or on the conditions?

The second floor wall push back to the third, is that both of those?

You want one solid, are you suggesting one solid plane?

Yes.

Yes, being thank you for clarifying.

Also for the clarification, Mr.

Chair.

So assuming that it all goes back to one plane only, Yasmin, therefore the entire front of that second floor roof is hipped, right?

Because right now is gable gable and then hip.

Sure.

So it's all one hip, basically, on one one plane.

Yeah.

So are they are they working on the old house or is this the new house?

This is the totally new construction.

Well, you scroll down through the thing, and there's a drawing of the old house on page 21.

No, it says it's a vacant lot.

It's 700 that came through here.

Okay, so this is but it says existing proposed, so I thought they were working on it also.

It's confusing to me.

I'm sorry.

May I may I explain something?

Uh towards the end, I put an example of the addition that was approved for a 700 Euclid.

I I apologize if that was um confusing.

This is just in case someone asks, but this this is the um proposal.

There's only proposed as it's a vacant lot.

Sure.

You and asked me to answer have been questions.

Can we just can you we just look at this uh the upper elevation is the um where you're asking to simplify um and also can we also look at the side of the front as well?

And so can you also explain the can your recommendation for this area?

So the the um uh my question is part of what the on the lower elevation where we see the porch, we see that the upstairs is hanging over the porch.

Yeah.

So part of that is going to come back in line with the the main facade.

Will the facade above that remain there or will it come back slightly further to align with the front wall on the first floor?

That that is your two items.

Yes.

So I'm not sure if staff can draw a line vertically from the wall of the first floor up.

Samantha, can you draw a line from she can't?

But but essentially if we put the cursor on where the current the front wall on the first floor is.

Just to explain that it and take the cursor straight upward to the sky.

That would that that's the line that staff is recommending the second floor be pushed back to.

Can you draw document camera?

I do have a number speaker sign up for this item, so I'd look like to open the public hearing at this time.

And the first speaker signed up is Sam Genevus.

Is that clear?

Um Chairbuche?

Yes.

That was the intention.

So uh the public hearing is open, Sam.

You're the first uh speaker signed up to speak of this item.

Am I the are there other speakers?

Uh there are others.

Let them go first.

Okay.

Well, I have uh uh three speakers, and the first one in order is Adam Turner.

Sure.

I'll actually let Glenn go first, but sorry, he's got some more.

Well, I've got Glenn uh Cementelli and I've got Adrian Ruth.

So if you could restate your name for the record.

I have uh I don't know if I handout to show you, but um so in the Woodland Heights Historic District, new construction is pretty rare.

And uh you know, we've been historic district for over 15 years and we still don't have design guidelines.

So I know we don't want to rush into things, but it would make things easier.

Uh so what we do have if you go to the Woodland Heights uh page.

And it goes, you have these four um conditions.

Uh and it and it just clearly says that it if it's over 30 feet, it's it it's incompatible.

And if it doesn't keep with the uh setbacks of the existing block, it's incompatible.

And that the setbacks on every house is 25 feet.

So just by those two things, it makes it incompatible.

And another big issue, I think, is the scale of this.

Um they want to build it with 4,681 square feet.

The largest house on that block is 3300 square feet.

So this is 1.4 a little over times bigger.

And if you take that whole block face, the the even side of 700, um the average size of the house is 2500 square feet.

So this house becomes 1.87 times bigger.

And now if you take both sides of Euclid in the 700 block, the average house size goes down to about 20, we could call it 2200 square feet.

So now that's 2.25 times bigger than every other house on that block.

And uh I I just don't see how that can be considered in scale with the surrounding homes.

Uh and those are uh those three motion grant the speaker more time, one minute.

Okay, all in favor.

I please those three points, you mean it's only four things they have to do.

And the second one being of its own time, and all you know, I'm not going to debate how the house looks.

Uh but they they they don't criteria one they don't do, criteria three isn't is I believe out of scale, and criteria four with height.

It clearly states can't be higher than thirty.

So just going by what we have for enforcement for lack of a better word.

I I don't see how this can go forward as is.

I think it needs some fairly significant changes.

That's all.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for the speaker.

Okay.

So the next speaker is Adam Turner.

Yes, thank you very much.

Um, thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'm a little tall.

Um thank you guys very much for being here and doing our jobs.

First of all, I don't envy anyone over there.

I think you guys probably um face a pretty anger cut every once in a while.

Um I'm here mostly just to echo what Glenn just said.

Uh we circulated a petition around the neighbors.

Um we outline a few different criteria here, four of them.

Um I took them basically right from the historic preservation manual for woodland heights.

Um the big ones are the setback, which isn't really straightforward because on the plans they had on the historic plat uh tracker, it was one, and then they changed it for the documents I'm seeing here is a different one a little bit further back, but still not at that 25 that we would hope as neighbors.

Um but any rate uh circulated petition got just about everyone in the block to sign.

I'll flip it over.

There's more signatures on the back.

We all put our addresses.

You can see this is the immediate neighbors that we really are just standing up against this particular plan.

Um understand that something's gonna get built there, but we really hope that it's more in line with the historic guidelines of the neighborhood that we all choose to live in and protect.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker I have is Adrian Ruthon.

If you could reset your name for the record.

Hi, my name is Adrian Ruthfin.

I'm here with my husband Les Ruthfin.

Uh we live next door at 708 Euclid, um, which is next door to the open lot.

Uh I've lived in the Heights since 1985.

We bought our house on Euclid in 1986 and raised our family there.

We've been there a long time.

The reason I came to the Heights in 85 was I love the heights.

I mean, back then it was considered not a place to live.

People who work told me various things.

They were worried about me living there.

Um, but I've seen it, you know, turn into the beautiful thing it is, and I'm glad we had the historic designation um done.

Uh we were concerned about maintaining the the nature of the properties there and keeping the the place looking like the heights.

Um I agree with all of the statements here, the 25-foot setback, the scale issues, um, and including the height and but also this the square footage.

If we look at the um plat there, the the offset the set the uh offsets of the lot of the houses on these lots is a lot bigger.

Like for instance, the house next door.

This you you may not be aware that what the history here, the um the house at 700 Euclid was loan owned by Sam and Joyce Ashmore since 1990 or so.

Um she they both passed away, she passed away uh about a year or so ago.

And their intention was always to keep 700 and there was no 702, really.

It was considered lots one and two, and they wanted to keep it that way.

We talked about buying part of it through the years, but and they were interested in that, but they never did, just so that we could maintain the integrity of the space.

When we first moved into our house, we had the speaker more time, two minutes.

Is there a second?

Second.

When we first moved into our house, the um thank you.

Uh the um our house owned, we found out that originally our own house owned half of that lot, and the other half of the lot was owned by 700.

It was owned, our house was owned by a realtor around 1910 to 15 or so, and he bought the house next door and took the other half of the lot, the other half lot with him.

So the intention was for these lots to have a little more space with more space, you know, between them.

And right now we have a house because of this big scale that it is, it's taking up all the lot except for three feet on each side, and the other issue that exists is there was the house that when they built that house on 700, it had plenty of space to the west.

Now it's actually kind of it's violating the offset from the lot line on the west side if we if you know all this continues.

And I'm sure there's some agreement between the two owners, but I don't know what happens with people that buy them next.

I guess it continues.

But the point is the thing just gets more crowded looking because their AC units at 700 are sitting on the lot line, the roof overhang is overhanging the lot line, and the that wall on the west side isn't even uh is not three feet from the lot line.

So um, and they just filed an uh a COA to extend the size, and we didn't protest it because there was it was still two lots, you know.

And but anyway, that's independent.

Um it's just I wanted to express our concern.

We want to maintain the integrity of the Woodland Heights historic district, and we don't want to set precedents that put that the kind of houses that are being built in other parts just down in the next block that isn't part of the historic district or further down, you know, these big houses that take up up to three feet to the lots edge and and back, you know, the whole thing.

Anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

And then I have one more speaker signed up.

Uh which is Sam G.

Nucas.

Uh Sam Janukas Creole Design.

When I submit to historical for any of the projects I do, there's a process.

When I submit the first the I I wait a few days and then I email the staff and I say I'd like to have an in-person meeting with you guys about this project.

And I do it with everyone, and I don't I don't do it on Zoom, I do it in person.

I met on July 28th with Yasmin about this particular project.

We went page by page and talked about what we should change and what we should adjust to make it okay to make it get it past the commission.

The um the first submittal that we made had different dimensions and had different heights on it because it was our first submission.

And that was the particular submission that Yasmin took time to to go through that when I met her on on July 28th, she said you've got to make these adjustments, drop the ridge height by a foot, which I did.

Um move the house back to align with the other houses on the block, which I did.

Um those were really the only things that were bugging her at that at that particular time.

I think since then the neighbors uh got the first draft that I put in that showed a 15-foot setback, and and and that's just not the case.

It we are going to be in line with the house next door at 700.

In line with the house that the lady just spoke, her house.

Her house, by the way, is 34 foot wide.

I measured it this morning.

And ours is 29 foot six inches, four inches wide.

So we're five feet narrower than her house.

So when they talk about massing, and I'll show you the picture of that.

When they talk about massing, and by the way, this is a non-contributing house.

That that that house is 34 foot wide.

I measured it myself this morning.

If you look at a drawing that shows this is our house right here in the middle.

This is the house.

Is there a second?

All in favor.

And please proceed.

So we fit, we we are we are we are good as far as scale.

We're good as far as setbacks.

We're good as far as uh the height.

We're actually the house at 70700 Euclid, I got passed two months ago.

It's a foot and a half taller than this new construction that I'm proposing now.

And that was passed by you guys.

There's another house.

Oh, where is this thing?

I have another house that um I want to show you.

So this was a 3D rendering that I put together showing the scale of this house as it relates to this.

That uh the house on the left, which is 702, is taller than the new construction we're proposing.

The neighbor on the right is taller than the than the new construction we're proposing.

And so to say that our house is out of scale is just wrong.

We are 4,000 square feet with a 529 square foot garage in the back.

We're not out of scale for the neighborhood by any means.

Matter of fact, there's a house that you guys approved in.

Let me find it here.

There's a house that you guys approved on.

Um right here.

This house is on Bowchamp.

This house is on a 50 by 100 lot.

My lot's 50 by 150, much larger yacht lot.

This house has an attached garage.

This house, you can look up the C of A.

It this house is as tall as my house.

It's at 3115 Beauchamp.

It was approved on consent agenda.

It's on a 50 by 100 lot.

I'm on a 50 by 150 lot.

So I want a huge lot with a detached garage.

I'm not attaching my garage, which is always a big deal.

Thank you, Sam.

Are there any questions of the speakers?

Yes, I have a question for Sam.

So based on your latest uh rendition here that's coming before the commission, your setback is what, 21 feet right now?

Um the I just want to clarify for everybody who is out there as well.

My current setback, and I measured the houses myself this morning, is 26 foot four inches.

From the front property line.

From the front property line, yes, sir.

That is to the face of the house or to the porch.

Just to the porch.

26 feet to the starting of the porch.

That's exactly what the house next door is, 708, and it's exactly what the house at 700 Euclid is.

Then the second question I have is that based on your not face?

On the northern uh face of the house, you have staggered uh roof lines that are approaching the property line.

And why is why is that?

I have roof line that's approaching the property.

Oh, on the right side.

Yeah, on the right side, there is uh staggered three uh roof lines, yeah.

You're right.

And you're getting closer and closer to the property line as well.

So why is that?

We're three feet away from that at that point, and the reason is is we have a kitchen in that area that bumps out in order to give us that what is that?

Oh, I'm sorry, yep.

So the closest one is less than three feet, and the closest one to the property line is actually less than three feet.

It's three feet.

Yeah, I can't be closer than three feet.

I wouldn't be able to get these neighbors to sign off on that.

Okay.

And then the last question is are you open to uh uh putting the three staggered lines on the front of the second floor back to the uh first floor?

I I think at that point we end up at that point.

Um it really hurts the front elevation of the house.

I think I could give up one of them offsets, but I think one offset, just like you see on what is that one?

I showed you the other one I get a minute ago right here.

The one that was approved on consent agenda, this one, just like that house.

If you just did that house with the flat front, can we go to this document camera?

If you did this house with just a flat front, absolutely you could do it.

But is that what we're really building in the neighborhood that sells two million dollar houses now?

No, we it needs to have some kind of design to it.

And and I think I could eliminate the one little gable and maybe just have a single gable with the hip behind it, uh, and I think it would be beautiful.

But um again, I I think that we meet all city codes, we meet every restriction.

I have many examples of things like this particular house that were approved recently.

And I I just really felt like this would go on consent agenda, like like like the one at Boschamp did.

And I'm I really am sorry that the neighbors don't pick up the phone and call me.

I live right here on Merrill.

I've been there for since 80 88.

They could pick up the phone and call me.

I'll go over there and sit down with them and go through the drawing with them.

Uh I I want everybody to be happy with the drawing.

It's not it's not a situation where you know we're just coming in and drawing whatever we want to draw.

I live in the neighborhood also.

Lived in the neighborhoods in 76.

Thank you, Sam.

I have a question for you, as mean.

Okay.

Um for the second question, clarification.

You just said the setback is 26 foot four.

Oh, 24.

It's 21.

26.

So what's the 21st?

That's a misprint.

That's why I'm saying what you looked at online was not had not got caught up with what Yasmeen and I had already discussed.

Right.

Yeah, yes, me.

Can you can you try to add clarity to the dimension to it?

Document camera.

I mean, presentation.

You can't.

Okay.

And scroll down, please.

That's where that number came from.

21 feet and 11.

And I can explain that.

Yes.

See, but but you're saying that's that's the that's where I got that number for the front setback.

That is the front setback on the side plan.

That's me.

Do you have another drawing that says otherwise in the packet or have that you've received you're saying that the site plan is well?

I'm saying the site, that site plan was the first the second site plan I sent you.

The first one had 15 foot.

That one had 21 foot four.

And then when you called me again a couple of weeks ago and said you know you were talking about.

That's the most updated one that was been a mistake.

Yeah, but since then we've adjusted that to I I told you, Asmine in the meeting on in July, I would align with the houses on the street, and that's what I intend to do.

So is it 26 feet back now?

Six 26 foot four.

Is we don't have a drawing that illustrate that, and we're approving the drawing.

You can make that a condition that we're we're we align with the other houses on the block or something.

So we're we're taking the horses mount for that kind of thing, right?

So that's okay.

I'm okay with that.

Okay.

All right.

Well, so I have another question just about the square footage because it's a larger house than it sounds like the other houses in the neighborhood, or at least on the block phase.

Could can you verify that, Yasmeen?

Like how much bigger it is than the other houses.

I have not done that calculation, honestly.

If you can go to um this second page, please.

Wait, wait, Sam.

And there's a there's a Google map that kind of shows a pro yes.

So this is approximately what I tried to do to put in um the mass in between.

It's not an accurate drawing.

I I just did that to kind of get an idea.

And um I'm not sure about the front setback, but maybe because he has a different front setback for the first floor, that is different from the front back for the second floor.

And so pushing that second floor will help with the square footage.

Um it will make the front setback um more.

Um also making the pitch seven over twelve.

That will also help bring um that height a bit down and kind of um, it doesn't, it doesn't, of course, if fix um every problem that the the neighbors has uh mentioned.

But but that's that's what staff believed.

Uh yes, me what what height would that bring the ridge down to?

Do you estimation?

Um so what we have right now is I'm sorry, trying to.

So his ridge height, the highest is 33 feet and 11 inches.

Um but he has an eight over twelve um pitch.

So it's gonna be lower than that?

So we asked him to make it seven over twelve, which will bring the ridge height down, but uh but I didn't put a number on like staff did not put a number on the ridge height.

We we can as a condition.

Okay, Commissioner Crosswell has a question.

Actually, what we're approving.

Because if it's five feet further back than what this shows, right?

Does that mean that you shrunk you you took five feet off the whole house and made it smaller, or you just pushed it back?

We have a hundred and fifty foot deep lot, so we're we're lucky to have that, so we're able to just push the house back to align it.

And the ridge height on the house that y'all just approved the addition at 700 is 34 foot six.

Uh-huh.

And so it's higher than my new construction.

I mean, there are just about every remodel that you've approved in the Woodland Heights or new construction is at least 4,000 square feet.

So I don't know why all of a sudden uh we're gonna uh start doing smaller houses than Woodland Heights, which is normally bigger houses.

That's the part I don't understand.

This was a pretty modest house, 4,021 square feet.

So did did you do any kind of analysis about the houses on the block face, like square footage wise to compare how much no, because I I I blend in well with the houses that are on that block.

If you look at the 3D rendering that we did, I mean we we fit with the other houses.

Sure, but but the person that spoke before you made it seem like this was substantially larger in square footage, and I just want to know if that's actually the case.

I mean you can see it right there.

I mean it's it it it blends very well with the with the uh with the with the two houses on either side of it.

Our house next door the house is three houses.

I have the square footage of every house on the block.

And and I do as well.

And and uh did you do the announcement as well?

So it doesn't matter what the square footage of the house on the rest of the block is.

There's some big houses on this block.

And uh I have the square footage of every person that wrote a negative letter against my project last night at 12 o'clock whenever they posted them.

And so it uh it's one guy, Williams.

Is he here?

Williams?

No.

Uh he's yeah, he's 3,796 square feet.

I mean, so it's the square footage, 4,000 square foot is common in the woodland heights for new construction or an addition.

Thank you, Sam Commissioner Crossbow.

You have to have a question just for Sam.

I know that there's concern about the height and the scale.

But I see you have a 10-foot plate on the second floor.

Would you be willing to reduce that to bring it down?

So that I under it's in fill construction.

And I know it aligns with the historic houses, but it's always nice to allow the historic houses to shine a little more than the in-fill construction and maybe just scaling the height down a little bit more.

So we're gonna uh I'm sorry to interrupt you, but no, go ahead.

We went from we went from a nine and twelve pitch roof to an eight and twelve pitch roof in order to get it down a foot, foot and a half, okay?

That's what's up my first move was.

The second move is they want me to go down to a seven and twelve pitch roof.

What which I'm not complaining about.

So now I've dropped it two foot six inches.

Pretty soon the house starts looking squatty and not to scale and not not pretty.

But to answer your question, yes, we could probably go ten and nine and and and get the down another foot.

You know, I mean I could do eye joists between the first and second and go another six inches, but at some point, I'm lower than the house y'all approved just two months ago.

So at some point, what am I doing?

Just driving this thing in the ground.

This is a house that's gonna be resold.

And it's gonna be resold for probably 2.2 million dollars.

So at the same time, I can't build something uglier that does not work uh for for the new buyers either.

And and and I I think an 11 foot down and nine foot up is the right scale for a house that's that in that price point.

And and that's what I'm drawing to on this.

Most of the time I'm working with a client, an end user.

This particular one, it's it's gonna be sold.

So I'm I'm afraid to get it to where it's being rejected because it's not right.

And I know y'all don't think about that, but I do.

So Sam, so the the follow-up question is that if you bring the roof pitch down to 712, let's say, uh what is the maximum height of the the entire house?

I think we're probably gonna not not taking it to account the nine foot first.

Just say you keep whatever second floor is.

When you bring it to 712, what is the height?

I think it's probably gonna get somewhere between 319 and 31 and 32 six, maybe.

I think that's where it is.

I'm gonna have to draw it and see.

Lower than 32, right?

Yeah.

But still above 30.

Yeah.

I know.

Yeah, the house was approved at 34.

I'm not saying I'm I'm picking sites now.

I'm just getting the facts.

I just want to make sure the facts are all within me because he's already spoken 26 feet.

I'm holding him to the fire on that one.

No, I saw I I I was gonna do that anyway.

Nobody had to hold my feet to the uh I have to align with the other houses on the block.

It just looks prettier.

It's the right way to do it.

And my I was wrong in the 15 foot that we initially put, but typically in the heights area, we do 15.

Every house across the street from these particular houses on the north side of that street are 15-foot setback.

And on this side, for some odd reason, they're 24 foot 6.

And you can stand there at the corner and look down the aisle and you can see the front porch is all the way down.

We're on the opposite side of the street.

The lots are not as deep, and they're closer to the street.

And so, no, we have to blend with the our fronts have to be lined.

I understand, Sam, because I used to live in woodland heights too.

So you're not doing something extraordinary on the front.

You're just blending it.

My house was 25 foot setback, by the way.

So as long as we all match.

Right.

That's the key thing.

I agree.

And and the other thing that I want to make a point is that based on the uh picture that uh that Yasmin showed where the the uh the aerial picture.

That in some ways your house is slimmer and longer.

Yes.

But if you add in all the roof lines of the other houses around it, your but your car port, the garage is very small, and they have relatively larger car garages than you.

To me, I see massing as not just that original house.

I see is all the roof lines that if I combine them together, right?

So in this case, uh I feel quite comfortable.

Yeah, houses are most probably wider but shorter in that sense.

And they have bigger garages.

So uh as a new construction, uh, I don't see the reason, especially when you have a lot that's 150 feet deep, uh, to be just limited to a 40-foot house, you know, or a 70-foot house.

That will not be justifiable to me, massing wise.

But uh, I appreciate your drawing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Should we make a motion?

I'll make a motion to accept staff's recommendation.

Which is with their condition there, yeah.

There's recommendation includes adjusting the second floor elevation and changing the roof pitch to 7 and 12.

Both cables on the front.

I mean, that picture he showed us of the other house, the the the bay stuck out from the first to the second floor.

If he did something like that, rather than just having something that sticks out and sits on top of the porch, I'd probably be okay with it.

But I I don't like the thing just floating over the porch.

It it looks jumbly.

Uhly amendment to the 26 feet as opposed to the picture being 21 feet.

I think you have to put the setback in there motion.

Okay, so the the third condition is it has a 26-foot setback.

I'm sorry, can I can you repeat that, please?

The condition that has a I'm sorry, just the front setback part.

26 foot setback, which is what he says it has, but but we want to confirm that.

Okay.

Okay.

Along with the pitch and the uh pushing the second floor.

Second.

Any other discussion?

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Any opposed.

No, uhstava opposes.

Any abstentions comment?

Well, I actually wanted to open the door for uh the designer.

If he designed the house like what uh uh Commissioner Couch said, you know, if you had a front that stood out like an L and not just a flat front, I think we'll be open more open to that than the second floor having the same, you know, kind of thing.

So if you can redesign that, I think we're open to that.

So if you want to resubmit a design like that, I think that'll work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Terrence.

We are now moving on.

Uh leave to item eight.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission.

This is staff person's Terrence Jackson.

I submit item E8 at 309 Bayland Street in Woodland Heights for your consideration.

The property includes a contributing 1,602 square foot one-story craftsman bungalow, and a non-contributing 528 square foot two-story detached garage apartment on a corner lot.

The applicant proposes a two-story rear addition to connect the main house to the two-story garage.

The house been has been modified over the years, and the non-original features and materials will be replaced to be compatible with the historic nature of the building and the surrounding context area.

Project details include replacing the existing vinyl flesh-mounted multi-light windows on the main house with new wood inset and recess simplified life patterns in the openings.

Staff recommends approval.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Terrence.

At this time, I'm gonna open up public hearing.

I do have one speaker signed up for this item.

It's uh Michael Um help with your last name, Prince.

But if you could restate your name in the microphone in the record, yes, Michael Zertucci.

Okay.

And I I'm here to answer any questions.

I'm I'm the one who pulled this.

So my only comment is on the addition.

Um you have that prairie style window.

Um I think that it should be one over one.

Uh and if you want to do that on the house, if you have some sort of evidence that it would have had a window like that, I'm fine with that because those are replacement windows, but on the addition, I think it should be a simpler window.

Okay.

And also the um uh shingles and the gable should should be more simplified, so just take them out.

Okay.

That was it.

Just this actually, Commissioner Couch's opinion on keeping the skirt on the addition as well.

I mean, I would like to not have it, but we're we're open if we need to take out the skirting on the addition, we're good with that.

Um that's not yeah.

I think in general, the addition should be should be like a background to the house and not try to mimic it since it's not part the house would never have looked like that originally, it wouldn't have that kind of massing or anything.

So it's fine to do it, but I think it should be more simplified.

But that that was it.

Otherwise, it's fine.

Okay.

We can work with that.

I'm ready to make a I do have uh caution as well.

Yes, please.

Document camera.

I I do want to make a style differences between my review online with conditions.

This is an approval right now because I don't know whether those conditions have already been updated and incorporated.

So I if if Commissioner Couch did not pull it, I would have pulled it because on that on well, you have my only copy, but you you can read that there were like 25% of it uh had to be back of the when did you print this?

Yes.

This piece of paper.

One o'clock today.

Yes.

So staff can explain.

Um so we've as stated in in uh you know the the script here.

Um we've been working with this applicant since June, and our last meeting was Monday, correct?

Yes.

So this is I understand what you're saying.

So there are some times where some projects are moving target, I guess you can say, where we're working with the owner and the agent up until the 25th hour, and this is one of those situations.

Everything on in those conditions, they met.

And so that's why it's gone from an approval with conditions to an approval.

Um that's all I wanted to know.

Okay.

I'm not here to the critique.

I'm here to make sure that those conditions have already been applied.

Yes, sir.

I promise you they have.

Okay.

Thank you.

So can I make my motion?

I make a motion to accept the project with the conditions that the windows be simplified to one over one on the addition, the um shingles be taken out of the gable and the skirt be simplified.

Gotcha.

Is there a second?

Stavas seconds.

Yeah, he did.

He took it out.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, I said that.

Okay, thank you.

And I have a second from Stava.

Any other discussion?

Question, the skirt being simplified means that it's not a flared skirt.

Yeah.

Yeah, just straight down.

Thank you.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion passes.

Moving on to item nine.

Apologies.

Good afternoon, Chairperson and members of the commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha Delion.

I submit item E9 at 201 West 15th Street at the Houston Heights West Historic District for your consideration.

The historic two-story residence and garage apartment CMU was built circa 1902, situated on a 13,000 two hundred square foot interior lot.

On July 23rd, 2025, the applicant applied for signage for the new business at the CMU, which is if you can keep going.

This building right over here.

Staff recommends approval with conditions that the sign be illuminated indirectly.

Chair and members of the commission, the agent is here to answer any questions.

I'm also here to answer any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

If you could reset your name.

Good afternoon, John Shepherd with Flight Signs.

The requirement to have the signage be not internally illuminated was kind of leaving the client with a bad taste.

She wanted something a little more creative.

And I've got a picture here of kind of what we're proposing.

Document camera.

So if you see the P on the right side of that upper screen.

And uh like I said, it gave our client a more creative and cheaper alternative to than doing this whole sign in NEON.

And truthfully, the the back side of that P is what we call halo lit reverse lit, which is allowed in your signage.

But for that to happen, those LEDs are inside the same letters.

So technically they're internally illuminated.

So if we went with the Yeah, that would be a standard neon sign.

And that's going to be so much brighter than what we're proposing for the client.

Truthfully, it's it's just the sign we've proposed while internally illuminated is a much softer thing than declaring neon.

And you know, part of the sign code says creative signs that represent the business being advertised are encouraged.

So what we have proposed is, in our opinion, a little more creative than a gooseneck light.

Just motion gave the speaker more time, one minute.

Is there a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Please proceed, sir.

Thank you.

So uh that's pretty much it.

We the the hanging lights just won't give a good look for the client as far as the two signs we have proposed.

And we appreciate your consideration.

Thank you.

Any questions of that speaker?

Yeah.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thanks.

I'll just ask while the public hearing is open.

Is there any other speaker to sign up on this item?

Not here, and you want to close a public hearing?

Commissioners, are there questions of staff on this?

I understand that the sign that's being proposed appears to look like neon.

I can't quite ascertain exactly how well that scale, you know, is made, but Commissioner McNeil.

Does anyone have the language of section 4.77 of the Heights Design Guideline?

Document camera.

Here it is right here, Commissioner McNeil.

So on this sign that they're proposing the white part, like the B and the words, those would be those would be lit up?

Yes.

Can I ask the gentleman?

Mr.

Shepard, is that accurate?

Yes.

Would you you have a question for you, please, sir?

I I'm looking at 4.77, and I understand the staff has recommended externally lit sign because of 4.77.

Is there any way that your sign conforms to these guidelines given the way that you have it designed?

I mean, it is internally illuminated, but like I said, your reverse lit stuff that is allowed, the topic right above it, reverse channel backlit, those are internally illuminated sign as well.

So the considered reverse channel?

No, we're not gonna do a reverse channel just because we're building a cabinet.

So the only thing that would be illuminated is the Queen B and the lettering.

Is your is your sign lighting and sign open data metal candidate letters?

No, sir, it is not.

Yeah, the question was.

Right.

And we're not proposing the backlit part.

So basically what we're proposing for the client would be the P itself, and then the what the white illuminated part of the P that's on the front of the letter is what the queen will look like when it's illuminated and the verbiage.

Mr.

Shepard, I think the question from members is is that is that a possibility of what's on the screen currently of both the P illuminated to look like neon and even though it's not actually neon, and of course there's there is neon today, and there's also neon that's not neon, but but basically allowing it to be backlit with that halo effect, like a like a traditional sign.

Is that an is that a if if you don't mind, I will defer that to uh the salesman for the project.

Certainly.

And if you could announce yourself for the record.

I'm Nathan Niemyer.

I'm with Flight Signs as well.

The the point of the sign, the the dark bronze piece is an aluminum.

And then like he said, the P, the white part that comes out is more what we call again a faux neon.

If if you wanted us to do maybe the cabinet where we have the entire cabinet as being reverse illuminated, it's just the the size of the letters because of it being Queen B's T room, is the letters for, especially for T Room would be too small to do as a as a channel letter per se, as a as an open face neon letter or anything like that.

And so that's why, even though it does say internally illuminated, the the pure purpose is to make it look like a neon without truly having neon on the on the face of the signal.

Does that answer your question?

Well, my uh so uh well my understanding is what you're stating is that the width of the lighted element on top.

Uh-huh.

The width in the in the in the presentation of it will look like neon.

Correct.

Like a traditional sign.

My question was simply the halo effect I see in this image.

Is that possi is that also a possibility in addition to what you've proposed?

If if you're asking if we can internally illuminate the whole cat or reverse illuminate the whole cabinet, then we can do that to add add an halo effect around the the entire cabinet.

But trying to do that with the letters and the B would be nearly impossible to do something like that.

But we could incorporate the reverse lighting in the cabinets themselves to go around the perimeter of the cabinets if that's what I mean if that would work for the commission.

But I guess the thing for me is you the picture here where it says the DAC restore that looks like neon.

And the way this is written with the little tiny letters doesn't look like a neon sign would ever really look, even if it's lit up and stuff.

Like I just the shapes of the letters don't seem to look like neon, because neon is made with those continuous lines, and this is just squared off and not rounded like the way the neon normally would be.

He's been trying to say it's it would look like neon.

But I think that P is different.

That that's not really what what the intent of the guidelines is because it's either one or the other.

I could see the neon letter or it's a backlet letter.

So then at this point, could we just go back with with purely neon on the face of it rather than it being a routed push-through faux neon?

Could we do the whole thing with neon on the face of that of that cabinet?

Well, I think neon is one of the ones that you're allowed to do, so yes.

Okay.

Then we'll go that, we'll go that route then.

Yeah.

We're just trying to make sure that we can only do the height combined.

Okay.

Perfect.

Okay.

Is there a motion?

Uh I make a motion that we approve.

Approve with the condition that it be a neon sign and that they work with staff to ensure that it meets the height of the design guidelines.

4.67.

77.77.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

We are Jackson seconds.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Moving on in item 10.

Good afternoon again, Chairperson and members of the commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha De Leon.

I submit item E 10 at 918 Columbia Street in the Houston Heights South Historic District for your consideration.

The 2,455 square foot two-story contributing Queen Anne style property was built circa 1910, situated on a 6,600 and square uh 6,600 square foot interior lot.

On July 11th, 2025, the applicant received a 301 complaint for construction without a permit or a certificate of appropriateness.

The inspector observed that the front windows and all of the second floor windows have been replaced from inset wood windows to vinyl windows, and a red tag was issued.

However, no hard was implemented for this address due to the error of the inspector.

The applicant applied for a certificate of appropriateness on July 11th, 2025.

The applicant received another 311 complaint for construction without a permit or a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of windows for this exact same reason.

Staff recommends denial as the scope of work does not satisfy criteria one, three, four, five, six, seven, nine, and ten, and an issuance of COR to remove the vinyl windows on the second floor.

And on the front elevation.

Chair and members of the commission, the applicant is available for questions.

I am also available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Um at this time I'll open the public hearing.

I don't have anyone sign up to speak on this item, but just checking if anyone in the room is here to speak on this item, please announce yourself now.

The the owner is here in case y'all have questions for him, but he didn't sign up.

Okay.

All right, I'll keep the public hearing open for now.

Commissioner members, are there questions of staff?

I'm just curious to know what the owner said.

Did the window company mislead them or something?

Or did they just do it on their own?

Um if you could announce your name and for the record in the market.

Uh yeah, Ed Wonder, I'm the owner.

Uh I did not know they didn't tell me.

So I didn't know that it was needed.

Now it's window world, so they will do whatever, you know.

So and I did get other quotes.

Um was for like 58,000.

I immediately deleted that because window world came in at 13 or so.

So that's what I did.

Um, but yeah, I I just I I didn't know.

So and then when they came by and told me, hey, you have to stop, I told them you they were they're supposed to do all of them.

I told them stop.

I had to mean put put two of them back.

Um but yeah, I I didn't know.

But uh yeah.

Yeah.

Do you have any were you able to keep the windows that they had pulled out?

I have three of them.

So and two of them are in the front.

I will say the one uh like the smaller one in the front.

That one, not that one, the small that one right there.

That one is I'm not sure why it is.

I'm I'm not a contractor, but I had to replace the floor all under that, and then I have to replace all the drywall.

I don't I don't know, it was just leaking constantly.

So uh that I mean that's really the reason that I I don't I don't really want to spend money on windows.

I'm just gonna I got leaks all over the place.

Um so uh it's one of those things where uh I'm wiping water off windowsills every morning uh because and I've got two dehumidifier front.

I mean the house is just leaking like a sieve.

So that that was the reason that I was even trying to get windows in the first place.

Um but yeah, so that's that's yeah.

Can I get some clarity from staff, please?

Yes.

What's what is the recommendation for this gentleman?

Is he gonna put vinyl windows in?

Is he gonna keep wood windows?

I'm not clear.

So we kind of left that up to you guys, but we just wanted them to or for the vinyl windows to be removed since they were put in without a permit.

We were unable to do a you know a like a site visit, but prior for them being installed.

And yeah, we just pretty much weren't able to really verify whether or not if they were uh beyond repair in person.

So just to be clear, the windows, all the windows on the front have been replaced with vinyl windows currently on the second floor.

And on the front elevation, just on the second floor.

Just on the second floor?

So the so the big the big windows on the first floor are still there, the wood windows?

None of the windows on the first floor are replaced.

They're all the same.

So just the two little windows.

Just the two in the just the two upstairs, yes, correct.

And you do you have those still or not?

I do still have those, yeah.

Well, maybe maybe we just make him put those back and leave the ones alone on the sides.

I mean, unless there's some evidence that the little one in the front, which he said he's had some trouble with was maybe damaged beyond repair and I don't want to stock the look at it.

Did Pete Stockton look at any of the windows?

Pete Stockton looked at the windows, yes.

It's an added conversion, it's not an original.

We looked at it from the outside from the site visit.

Yeah, sure.

Yeah.

Okay.

So what did Pete Stockton say when he looked at the windows?

Uh he noticed that it was done without a permit.

So uh he was obviously happy.

Like I'm talking about the condition of the windows.

Uh we weren't able to go ahead and look at the existing windows.

Um could could he go and look at them and see if they can be salvaged?

Absolutely.

If they're like wrecked, it's not gonna do any good to try to put them back.

Absolutely.

And then I guess they need to work on some waterproofing.

Because it may not be the windows, it may be something else.

Correct.

So I have a question actually for the owner.

The original windows, I mean.

So can you tell me how many of those windows have already been replaced with vinyl windows?

Yeah.

Do you have a like the map that I have?

Uh sorry, there's a lot of pictures.

Okay.

So if you sorry, I it's hard for me to oh, there we go.

Okay.

So the second floor is the interior, I guess, square-ish, if you look at it.

So it's 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19.

13 through 19 were replaced.

17 is the front or 17?

15 and 16 is the front.

15 and 16.

This is the front right over here.

Yeah.

So and that 15 is that smaller window that I was talking about.

And then so I but I have that.

I have 15.

I have 16, and then I have 17.

Uh 13, 18, and 19 were aluminum.

They didn't they took them out and they just fell apart.

And then 14.

I honestly don't know.

I don't know what window world did with 14, but I don't have that one either.

All of the second roll 13.

How many original windows do you still have?

On the second floor, I have presume you said the first floor, nothing has been moved.

No, it's all the same.

It's all whatever I bought.

We're talking about 13 but I see.

How many of this there you still have the originals on I only have three.

Which is 15, 16, 17.

Those are downstairs?

Commissioner, yep, those are upstairs.

Yeah.

So the the controller upstairs, right?

Yep.

So 15 and 16 is the front of the house, 17, 18, 19, and 13 and 14 are on the side of the house.

But yeah, very visible we looked at in the front.

So I'm thinking about COR.

Do we have then now they don't have the originals anymore?

Do we put a condition to ask him to put wood windows instead?

The ordinance says that they can be in kind.

Yeah.

So it has to be in in wood windows, right?

No.

The ordinance is is fairly clear that as long as they match.

Right, but that's if it's if it's if the windows are not repairable to be otherwise they're still protected.

But he still has the original windows for some of these windows, my understanding.

And I wanted to make a clarification that windows 13, 18, and 19 were aluminum.

Well, I'm a little confused just on the windows like on the front of the house, if the big ones on the front wall that appear to be, are they one over one?

I mean, there's some windows that are like multiple lights in your when you're rent running through the images.

I just want to just make sure I understand on the front facade from staff's point of view.

And for the applicant, you know, if you have original wood windows and you're you know, like sweating on the inside, you know, they make interior storm windows that you could just put in that that stop that from occurring.

Yeah and and make it airtight and air sealed.

Yeah, and I mean I I understand that it's you know you're not gonna let me put vinyl windows in the front.

I I get that.

That's not gonna that's not gonna happen.

But um honestly what I was I was hoping to come away with was the ability to to put in the vinyl windows where you can't see them away from the street, and then I mean I can I can't afford $58,000 windows, but I can probably afford whatever it costs to put new windows in the front that are wood and whatever they need to be um conforming.

Um but I guess that that was kind of my hope coming away from this.

Um but obviously, you know, I screwed up, so that's that's on me.

But uh yeah.

But the original one the windows on the front are still there, right?

The downstairs ones.

Yes.

Yeah, they're they're all still in.

And the downstairs one was not replaced at all.

Yeah, the front ones are still there.

So we're still debating only the upstairs right now.

Correct.

What about the sides?

Yeah, that's that's what I was thinking about when we say replacing kind.

If he had original aluminum windows on 13, 18, and 19, do we ask him to put back aluminum or do we put it on if if they're in set that's a question?

And that's that's a question.

Can we cycle through the other sides of the house or drawings?

There's also like a six over six window on the side.

Well, those are probably newer.

Yeah.

Right.

So I mean a lot of historic material.

I feel I feel like a little bit we should send Pete out there and inventory the windows and which ones aren't repairable.

Yeah.

And which ones are repairable.

Uh-huh.

And then pick this back up once we have a little bit more information.

So maybe I'm going to do that.

I would move to defer this.

Is that your motion?

So we have a little bit more information.

Final discussion is just because any window like aluminum or if we determine the other multi-light windows are not original, they're not protected.

So that's what's why we'd like to defer it.

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Right now.

Any abstentions?

Okay.

So the motion was to defer it to allow uh to get some more clarity from staff on which windows are actually not original to the house itself, which um maybe determined um a would so recommend you consider uh interior storm window, like on the front windows, like on the front facade, because they will stop condensation.

They will they are airtight.

And um it's just and they are cheaper than replacement windows.

So um it's just for your uh your knowledge.

And then again, we do allow windows to be replaced if they cannot be repaired in a re in a reasonable fashion.

So for instance, the w you if you still have those windows on the second floor, that's great.

If you could look at that, um you could also determine whether they're repairable or not.

So and I think that would this the commission would like to some feedback from from Pete if possible and from our staff.

So we're maybe both if they're repairable and if they're even original.

Right.

I mean, I think those are the things that windows are not original.

Yeah.

Right.

But I'm guessing the six over six window that's by itself on the side may not be originalized.

So if we have an inventory of the windows, then we can tell him you can do that.

Yeah, it's an old window with rope, but it doesn't look like it matches the house.

So yeah.

Um I want to uh actually get a better clarification.

Uh are you getting this all clearly or is it as clear as mutt here right now?

No, no, I think I I think I I think I got it.

I mean, don't be bashful.

You know, if it is confusing, just let us know.

No, I mean I uh I'll defer to Pete, whatever Pete.

I think in an effort to help you, if we know which windows are original and which ones aren't, yeah, which ones are repairable and which ones aren't, we can give you better guidance.

Guidance to what you can replace and not replace so that you're not spending more than you need to or undoing things that don't need to be undone.

Yeah, that honestly that would be great.

So thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, moving to our last item on the agenda for um review, um, item 11.

Good afternoon, Chairperson and members of the commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha DeLeon.

I submit item E11 at 417 Highland Street in the Woodland Heights Historic District for your consideration.

The 1,648 square foot one-story contributing Queen Anne property was built circa 1910, situated on a 7,500 square foot interior lot.

On June 9th, 2025, the applicant applied for a relocation and rear addition.

The application was heard at the July 17th Commission and was deferred.

Staff recommends approval.

Chair and members of the commission, the agent nor the applicant are not here today, but I'm here to answer any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Were there any changes to the application?

No.

Was this the one that came before us last month?

Yes, sir.

So nothing has been done since.

No, sir.

So why should we change that in our decisions then?

Wasting all time here.

But I do as I have a speaker.

I do have a speaker.

So you say the owner and the agent is not here.

To my knowledge.

But the applicant is here.

Hi.

So look so let me look let me just start.

No, Nick told me that you weren't going to be here, that he was also not going to be here.

Oh.

So the applicant is here.

So let me let me open the public hearing first.

And um, I do have a speaker sign up.

Christine is it Chickisster?

If you can reset your name for the record and the microphone and just a question, I think the commission may have some questions as well following your thank you, Chairman and community members.

Uh my name is Christine Chichester.

I'm the owner of 417 Highland Street, uh, along with my husband Justin Chichester and our two kids uh eating it.

So um I'm mainly here to answer any questions that you might have about our decision and our uh desire to relocate the property.

Um from the previous meeting, which was deferred uh, and I believe the feedback was you wanted to see some other design options.

Um we did go back and look at other designs, and what we've determined is um dimensionally currently the house is situated to the western side of the lot.

We have an 11-foot driveway on that western side.

And the um back corners of the house have been uh determined that it extends, the original house extends all the way to what incorporates a lattice type porch in the back.

So if we count that as our original house and we maintain those corners.

Umri has all my notes.

Um our challenge is to put in a garage back there, uh, which is a standard two-car garage, is what we're looking for uh to make this house functional for us.

The um parameters don't allow the two cars to get in, or even even one car to really kind of navigate in and around the corners to get back into the house with a five-foot offset from both sides uh of the fence lines, property lines.

So that puts our two-car garage over onto the east side.

Um now if we put a two-car garage on the east side and we maintain the house where it is, uh, we're looking at a driveway cutting through 28 feet of uh grass, um, our side yard.

And um, motion grant figure two inch more time.

Is there a second?

Jones, seconds.

All in favor.

Thank you.

I just proceed.

Um what that does is it cuts into the side yard, having a driveway go through there, and then also it makes the garage a much more prominent feature.

You have nothing uh covering up that garage, and it's in order to get any sort of kind of yard that we're really uh looking forward to in this uh property.

Uh we would you know if we would kind of lose that with this um with pushing the garage over to the what east side and not relocating the house to the east side as well.

So that was the the main goal and the main desire.

Um a little bit about us.

We're we're family, we're not from Houston, which is a good thing because we're not of the mindset of big car, big house.

Uh what we're really interested in with this property is um maintaining the smaller house feel and also um having that outside usable space because we are a very active family and I want my kids to run around uh get some exercise.

So I'm here to answer any questions, though, if you have any.

Yes.

Thank you.

We have a I think the Commissioner Widard Jackson has a question.

Sorry, I'm trying I'm trying to remember from from last month and also kind of think about this dimensionally as you said.

So there is an existing 11-foot driveway.

Yes, on the west side of the property.

And with opinions aside, that's not large enough to get a car down and into a garage.

We can we can probably fit one car through.

Um what it ends up doing is you're still stacking your cars in a driveway.

Um it's it's not it's not ideal.

It's not ideal.

Yes.

There's not enough turning radius to build a two-car garage and get both cars into the garage.

Okay.

Look at page 14.

The BLA shows the original concrete slab garage and the tightness, which is why they're trying to shift it.

I just I guess I'm well, I'll save that for our discussion.

Um I have a fundamental question here for all the historic districts.

Eleven-foot driveway is very standard for an intermediate lot, right?

And typically the cars, if they want to pack pocket right to the pack, they will still use that as a driveway and then pop one car or stagger the cars, like back to back.

So if this is the case that we have always accepted as as part of the intermediate law, so why is this any different?

So if this is the case that we have always accepted this as part of the intermediate lot, so why is this any different?

Yeah, I'm putting a philosophical question.

I mean I guess that's kind of where I am as the trade-off between and I understand I've got I've got a young family too, um getting in and out and making it livable for for your family versus the potential either loss or you know significant deterioration of moving the historic fabric.

Yes.

Um that's why I'm trying to think about in fact keeping different layouts and ways this may work.

In fact, keeping the driveway at one one at 11 foot driveway and you stagger the cars, give you fantastic garden on the other side.

So there is one more um item for the east side.

We have a legacy encroachment from our eastern neighbors.

Um their current garage is offset by one foot from the property line, and their driveway actually comes over into our property about a foot to a foot and a half.

Uh so what we're trying to really do is come to some sort of harmony with that.

Um they also just put a second story onto that garage.

Uh so by kind of moving our house over and to align it with theirs.

Um, we can at least coexist with their property uh without much detriment to them.

We do want happy neighbors.

Um you did buy that property with the survey and you knew that it was in the buyer everywhere, but we were not aware that they were putting on the second story.

Well, did they get a permit for that?

They didn't.

Because that's illegal.

They can't they can't do that.

Well, let's tell staff about the neighboring property because I can't tell from that site plan, but it looks like it's the the garage is also over the property line.

I I keep it.

The garage structure is one foot on their side.

So it's just encroached by a foot onto the allowance.

Um the concrete slab where it comes, it kind of does a little pop out like that.

That's onto our property.

So someone needs to do a 311 call in the neighbor's garage because uh they must have done it without a permit.

They they do have permitting.

Um they put up the second story and they pulled it into the allowable.

I guess it was a three foot offset.

Um so all that is kosher.

We've been talking to them about that.

But we're trying to do that.

Huh?

You wouldn't necessarily have known that the bottom part of the garage was encroaching.

I mean, I'm sure their lender would like to know.

Well, sta staff can yeah, staff can illuminate us on the other property.

Um But we don't we don't really want to make waves about their other property.

What we can do is, you know, take ours and kind of make it harmonious with theirs.

Um and we're okay with that.

It gives us privacy, putting our garage, and then we have a second story on top of the garage that gives us the privacy from their second story.

It also makes sure that we our yard space and our garden space is not being overlooked by their second yard or their second story.

It gives us the privacy on the other side uh on the western side.

Um so I don't think we can I would feel comfortable letting them move the house on the property just because they want to.

Like if there was literally no room to get a car, sure, that may be a reason, but there's already a space and they could just redesign the garage to work on that side.

I'm worried about the Pandora's walks that we open.

Now every other project from the heights is gonna come in and say they want to move the house.

We've had a couple of things.

We've always said not to do it, and they've they've wanted to do it for different reasons.

Our designers are bungalow revival, um, Nick and Gilbert.

They've moved several historic homes and they have a really good track record.

That's all I can say on that.

I don't know.

Uh every house is different, so they might not have been in the historic district.

Well, staff's recommendation is approval.

Well, I don't I personally don't feel comfortable with that.

Well, if you want to make a recommendation, I may second it.

I think uh I'm sorry, but I think you need to create a voice to redesign the the to work with the weather house is it's it's just like like part of the guidelines is the house has to be in its historic situation and context, and that's where that house always was ever since it was built.

And you lose a lot of material when you pick the house up and move it over, you lose the whole foundation, you have to reconstruct it.

So I and we've we've had other projects.

I've been on the commission for eight years where they've tried to move the houses for various reasons, and we we don't let them do it unless it's there was one project where it was a house that had been moved onto the property, and we let him move it around.

But but that wasn't the original house.

So the context was already broken.

But here the house has been there ever since it's been built.

I would like to I'd like to offer, because I don't sleep much these days to think about this for you tonight.

I think there is a creative space solution here that that would meet everyone's um we could defer again criteria, but uh yeah, we've we've got to all commit to wanting to find that solution.

Uh I would propose a defer.

Well we deferred it and they didn't make any change to the right.

So we just need to either vote on it.

Well, the people in Courtland didn't make any change the second time, the third time they did.

So maybe they'll ask you.

Well, I I think let's see what we're doing.

Commissioner College.

My question is what is the reason for the deferral?

If all of us are disagreeable.

So number one, the whole point of this particular application is moving the house.

If you and I are both not we're not going to be happy with the house being moved, we should just state it that they they don't come back and still keep on giving us another option where the house is being moved, right?

So I'm just gonna say uh we we will not let them move the house, period.

They can come back with an option that would that can come up without moving the house, but if they just come back and say, well, this option is moving the house now, but it's a little bit less.

I'm just trying to make it so they're not have to reapply completely from scratch again.

I think staff has a I think staff has a comment for us.

Uh so I spoke to the architect, Nick Aronko, who's not here today.

Uh he and the owner would like for a definitive action to be given today and not to defer.

Sorry, what was it again?

They want a definitive answer, they would not like to defer.

Yeah, voted up or down.

Okay, well then I deny.

That's fine.

I second that.

Okay, so I have a motion from couch.

I have a second from the app.

Any other discussion?

All in favor of the motion?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

We all have benefits.

Oh no, I'm my watch then.

There's no procedure as justification that you need to use.

Like literally, hello, we're still on the record.

Um we're now moving on to the next item on the agenda, which is item F, comments from the public.

And I do have two speakers signed up to speak.

Um so I'm open to the public hearing at this time.

The first uh speaker is Veronica Cabrera.

Hi, my name is Ronnie Cabrera.

I wasn't aware that you had this system, so the only thing I can offer for is that I do have large posters, but I'm not sure how that would help today.

Um but if you want to see them, I can pass them around.

I am a uh third generation resident of the East Tex Jensen neighborhood.

Um I'm referring to the Granada Theater, which is about to be demolished pretty soon in a few weeks.

And it is really hard to know that um this this beautiful iconic building that represents the arts.

I'm an artist, I'm an arts advocate.

I've been on national TV defending the arts in our community, and to see a space like this to be demolished within a few weeks without real consideration of preserving or rehabilitation of what can be done with it.

Um I just wanted to bring it to the table and see what are the options.

Can we halt demolition to have a better discussion?

Um what what can be done as a resident and an artist?

And I guess that's it.

Thank you.

You know who currently owns the building?

Yeah, a little more context about the demo.

Thank you so much.

Um just to give a little context, CDRC did a long study five years ago.

CDRC did a long study five years ago.

A lot of people and artists tried to purchase it.

It has fallen through.

Um Catholic charities has just purchased it to demolish it and put a soup kitchen in its place.

What's CDRC?

Um the community development uh research corporation uh committee or something like that from the University of Houston.

They did extensive research, did community surveys, uh, came up with drawings, which is what I have here, did I mean a lot of community input for years with the driving forward that now commissioner um Adrian Garcia is actually backing with funds for this work to be done.

Um and then those drawings have been ignored.

And honestly, historically, our communities ignored.

I just want to put that on the table.

Have you talked to your city council representatives?

Yes, I had uh I came to City Council yesterday, um, and that's why I'm here today because everything seems to be this long process, and my concern is that it's gonna get demolished by the time the process happens, and we don't want that to happen.

So, who is the new owner now that wants to demolish it?

Um Catholic charities.

They have to be able to do that.

Catholic charities.

Yes, they're gonna bring some good resources to the community.

However, they are still in a capital campaign.

They've bought the entire lot.

So the the entire lot has been purchased.

Um so they're still in the middle of a capital campaign, but meanwhile are still ready to demolish the building without having a full plan and without having all the money raised to build.

If helpful, um I will volunteer or I'll I'll volunteer a wonderful staff too to work with them to sit down with Catholic charities.

There are resources available for historic for restoration, historic uh preservation and investment, and it may be something that Catholic charities is not familiar with that may be actually more advantageous to them and their fundraising to actually reuse this existing building given the condition uh a condition assessment than it would be to tear it down and to build something new.

So if you could broker that conversation, um if there I don't know if you have a sense yet if Catholic charities would be open to having that conversation, but um they certainly there's no reason you couldn't have a soup kitchen inside the historic Granada Theater and preserve the building for future potential.

Yes, so on that note we have brought it to the table several times.

The latest that we got was a demolished image of all the bricks restacked to be a um kind of like an icon symbol of what the Granada used to look like and um with the symbol of Catholic charities on it.

And then when I even asked if we could save, because the word Granada is still actually intact, that if we could save those pieces at least, they said no, that that would be too expensive to restore, even so.

So that was a bit of a volunteering you and me.

We're starting a thing.

So and and I just want to lift up that our neighborhood does not have many places that are deemed historic.

There are a lot of historic buildings.

I renovated one myself, invested it the 100,000 that we got from Kelly Clarkson, plus all of this work and turned it into a community center for the neighborhood.

I held 6,000 people in that community center for the neighborhood, fed people during the disasters, opened up this space so I can really prove what an old building can be reused for, and then unfortunately our landlord doubled our rent, so he pushed us out.

But it just to show that the neighborhood really would love to preserve something like this if they were made more aware, more openly, because even on the fence that has been put up there, there's no signage communicating to the neighborhood.

Even the gas stations put up signs saying, oh, this is coming soon, but nothing has put on this fence to communicate to the neighborhood that this is happening, and so of course it's demolished, and then what can you do?

Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention.

And I think um I I know I personally am open and and willing to help, and I think preservation Houston, our our local organization.

This is a great um uh opportunity to pull preservation Houston and there are our local advocates for this.

So um I think we've got some representatives here, Emily.

You may want to speak or we can connect afterwards, but if you can connect us with you, someone uh who owns the property now at Catholic Charities, then I think we can have the conversation and bring the potential resources to them for their consideration.

I can't thank you guys enough.

Thank you.

We're here.

Oh, good.

Okay.

By the way, can you repeat your name again?

Mine?

Uh Veronica Cabrera Moreno, but I go by Ronnie.

Okay, thank you.

We have vacancies here.

Well, I love that.

I am the founder of Art in the Heart, and I'm a really um strong advocate for my community.

They said I was going to be ruffling feathers, and I said, Well, I'm going to do what it takes.

That's what we need.

People who ruffle feathers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I do have one more speaker signed up.

Carlos Espaniolas.

Unfortunately, he left and had to go to a uh another meeting, but I think she spoke on his behalf.

Okay.

Right, thank you.

Then we'll move on to item G comments from the HAHC commissioners.

It's been a pleasure.

Enjoyed working with everybody.

Good luck.

I don't know who your next builder is.

And I think we have a few council member uh positions that are also being at least one that I'm aware of that's being filled.

I'm not sure about um all the other council member positions.

But council.

Yeah.

But um I think council member Martinez has um nominated someone to um represent Glenbrook Valley, but I I don't know the person as well.

But um anyway, but I'm glad we did have a photograph at the beginning of this meeting to remember this this this course.

As far as I'm concerned, including myself, I'll go in the speaker, microphone.

Yeah, I mean we we talked about those who are voted in by the council, but I think the citizen reps here uh as far as I know, we we don't have uh re-nomination as well.

So it is maybe our last meeting as well.

Well, as far as I know I guess legal, but as far as I know, until one is replaced.

Um I don't know who I there will be for for the at-large members on this commission, there will need to be a motion on a future council agenda soliciting nominations from the council members.

And once those nominations are made, then that those nominations will be considered um separately.

So but until that time happens, they yeah, they serve the current everyone serves until yeah, until you're replaced.

But I'm missing I do I'm aware of at least one the as mentioned the for four members that will be newly in um joining the commission are under the purview of the mayor.

There are uh these other council member positions I'm aware of, at least Councilmember Martinez is has submitted uh replacement for uh for the columns position.

Correct.

Yeah, but the three but I don't know when that position is going before city council.

I'm not I'm not sure about that, but I do know that is in the works.

Um I'm not sure about the other positions that you speak about.

There will be a request for nominations to to come forward.

I would expect probably to make it simultaneously simultaneous with the uh appointment request from the mayor.

Which is August 26th, right?

Or is that is it August 26th?

Did he what?

No, they've not been on the agenda yet.

I I think it's uh September 3rd, um, as far as the the new appointments.

Um we have to find the the city council member that voted us in or that nominated us to bring our names up again during that time, before that time.

Well sorry, if if they bring up um a nomination, but until they bring a nomination, I believe that if the status quo is still in place.

So I would still recommend checking in with your city council member nonetheless.

My my recollection of the way it works is that it will simply be on the agenda for to open it up for nominations for these four positions.

There won't be names on the ballot at that point or on the agenda.

Um but it will be just a request those nominations.

Council members will then have a week, maybe two weeks, just depends on the timing of when they get it in there to um submit nominations to the mayor's office to then get on the agenda again.

I'm thinking if I were planning it, I would want it on the same agenda as the regular appointments.

But I that that could change.

Uh council appointed positions.

Commissioner Couch, can you put your microphone on?

Sorry.

So for the council member appointed positions, do you have to live in the district of the council member that appoint you?

I think it's another.

Any council member can make a nomination to these positions.

Okay, because Dominic and me both live in the same district.

Okay.

Yeah.

Can they can the district the council member make two nominations?

Pardon?

Can the council member make two nominations?

It's not necessarily through that same council member, but yes, they could.

I think the last I saw, I think there was one council member who had made two nominations.

He isn't isn't there anymore.

He he's gone.

So I can't talk to him.

But uh Kim.

Uh yesterday, as I was told by uh councilperson uh Castillo that he cannot nominate two people.

Maybe that may be.

Yeah.

I I don't think that's in the ordinance, but that's what he said.

Uh but uh in our position, I was voted in by councilperson Robinson, and he's already obviously not in office anymore as well.

But I think you can submit your application to be reappointed to the board.

The mayor's office that does boards and commissions.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So we supposedly through a commission through a councilperson?

Well, if you have an interest in staying on, then you can re submit your um credentials to be reappointed.

To who?

To scout to scout.

Okay.

Yeah, council member Gallego is the last time appointed to or nominated to, excuse me, it was not an appointment, but nominated to.

I was just beginning to light the Senate.

Well, I believe uh on the agenda for September 3rd, there'll be five new the five positions that are the purview of the mayor and four replacements and one is for uh Tony DeBose, which is no longer with us.

So that that's the what what I'm aware of.

Um but I'm assuming that the council members have some purview and when when they make these recommendations, and I'm and I'm sure there's some coordination with the mayor's office as well.

So but I know many of us, I mean, for many years I didn't have to reapply, or at least August I was asked what would you say?

But I know this year back in December, uh many of us were asked to formally submit uh application resumes, you know, uh uh written statement uh about what willing to you know serve again.

And so um I'm not sure you all receive that, but I know a number of the members on the commission received that uh request uh for it.

And so um, I don't think they decision.

Well, I'm I I'm just saying uh they they may be, but um a scout.

Understand.

But I think that's why again I would counsel at least talking to your your current council members and because that's through the mayor's office of appointments.

That's why you didn't receive anything from that office.

Because your position was not filled through the mayor's appointment.

It was filled through the open nomination process, correct?

Yeah.

Do you have to get the council person microphone?

Sorry, you got to get a council person to renominate.

And I'm not sure Scout would be the person to to do that because she's the one representing the mayor's office.

Yeah.

Sure.

But I would recommend talking to your council member nonetheless.

And we have talked to him we did and uh Dominic said that he told Dominic that he could only appoint one person.

And he's already said he appointed one, so that's why he's asking us to go to the other at large positions.

Okay.

Well, more to follow then on that.

With that, we'll move on to item H the Preservation Office report.

Good afternoon, Chubuchek Commission members and the public.

I am staff person Yasmin Arslan, and today I will be delivering the preservation officers report.

On behalf of staff, I would like to express my gratitude to Commissioners Curry, McNeil, Sepulveda, and Wade Hour Jackson for their time and service.

Each of you will be missed.

And we thank you tremendously for your hard work, time, dedication, and passion.

As we close up our second cycle with new preservation tracker, staff would like to thank the public for their patience and understanding as we continue to work with our new website.

We have received a lot of constructive feedback on preservation tracker and are currently working with various divisions and teams to make our website even better, which takes time.

For direct questions about preservation tracker, please contact our office at 832-393-6556.

On July 31st, the Houston Office of Preservation met with some residents of the Fifth Ward neighborhood to inform them of the grant our office was rewarded to nominate a four-block stretch of Lions Avenue as a National Register of Historic Places.

The meeting was the first of two or three meetings that Stantec and our office will provide to the wonderful residents of the Fifth Ward.

Staff has been busy.

This month alone, we have received nine pre-application design reviews, eight administrative approvals, and 28 C of A applications.

We appreciate everyone's patience and understanding as we continue to serve the public.

Staff is moving forward with the Norhill Design Guidelines and preparing for another public meeting sometime in September.

Closing, if you have questions, you can call the Houston Office of Preservation Hotline at 832-393-6556 or visit our website at HoustonPlanning.com.

This concludes the Preservation Officer's report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, we are adjourned.