It is now 234, Thursday, September 11th, 2025.

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

I am Chair David Buchek to verify we have a quorum.

I will call the roll.

I know that Commissioner Jones will be absent today.

Commissioner Smith.

Present.

Commissioner Escobar is not present currently and had to go to event.

Chair is present.

Commissioner Hill.

Here.

Present.

Commissioner Smith.

Well, I should Commissioner Mark Smith.

That's my bet.

Commissioner Browning.

Mr.

Broadbeck.

Present.

Present.

Commissioner Davis.

Present.

And our acting secretary, Deputy Director Robert Williamson.

Present.

Thank you, Commissioners.

We have a quorum.

I will start with the Chair's report.

And as so um, as if your frequent flyers here in the audience, um, we've had some uh new members join the commission, and I think the direct director will speak about that.

So um but what I'm gonna focus on right now is just the speaker rules.

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

Meetings start about a minute or so after the scheduled time to allow the HTV broadcast to go live.

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

The speaker rules are posted on the agenda and are at my discretion.

At this meeting, applicants will may open and speak for three minutes.

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

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

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

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

I will open the public hearing.

Commission members um please hold your questions for staff until uh we have our uh deliberation deliberations until after the public um um hearing, and then we'll have our discussions one time after at the conclusion of that meeting of of that of that discussion.

And with that, we will move on to the director's report.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Buchek, Commission members and the members of the public.

I'm Robert Williamson, acting secretary of the commission and deputy director of the planning department.

For my report today, I have several board member announcements based on city council action last week.

First, I want to congratulate our four reappointed commissioners.

So Commission position one is our archaeologist Ashley Jones, not here today.

Position three, architectural historian Chantel Blakely, position five, registered architect David Buchek, and also acting chair.

Position seven, real estate appraiser, John Cosgrove.

Next, I want to welcome our new nine commissioners to their first HAHC meeting after being sworn in earlier today.

Position two, we have a professional historian Carl Smith.

Position four, Cultural History Organization Representative Zion Escobar is not here.

Position six, commercial business representative David Hill.

Position eight, remodeler builder Sam Seidel.

Position nine, preservation specialist Mark Smith.

Position 10, Citizen Representative Robert Browning, position 11, Citizen Representative John Broadback, Position 12, Citizen Representative Craig Garcia, and Position 13, Citizen Representative Becky Davis.

Thank you all for your service, and we look forward to working with each and every one of you going forward.

But for the record and uh finally, I want to recognize three citizen representative members who were not reappointed after their respective terms expired, but served on the board through our last meeting on August 14th.

They were not recognized at our last meeting because we were not yet aware that they would not be reappointed.

Those members are, or were I should say.

Position 11 was Dominic Yap, a two-term member, position 12, Charles Stava, three-term member, and position 13, Ben Kush, a three-term member.

These three members have made a significant contribution to the Commission and Houston's historic preservation efforts.

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

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

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Robert.

We don't have uh Mayor's liaison report today, so we'll move on.

Next item is the consideration of the August 14th, 2025 HAHC meeting minutes.

Um I recognize that only three of the folks in this room were here for that meeting.

So are there any questions of the members that were here?

Not hearing is there a motion to accept the minutes.

I'll move to accept the minutes.

Commissioner Blakey, is there a second?

Second.

By default.

Okay, all in favor.

At least say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, any abstentions, the motion passes, and we'll move on.

Um the next item on this agenda uh with this new um this largely new uh commission will be uh item A, which will be nomination election of a chair and vice chair.

And I have legal here for reference just to help me with with this process.

So um I'm not sure how the commission wants to um go about this, but basically it's a consensus of this commission.

Um I would just open the floor for nominations for either position or both.

I'll start with the chair.

So is there a nomination for chair of the commission?

I'd like to nominate David Buchet for chair.

Second.

Is there any other uh nominations?

Okay, all in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

Any against, any opposed?

Okay, the motion passes.

Um we we uh but we do need a vice chair, and we currently don't have a vice chair because um uh that position has been has been changed.

So we will need a nomination for vice chair, and so uh look to the commission.

Um I nominate John Cosgrove as Vice Chair.

Okay, I have a nomination for John's Cosgrove.

Second.

Okay, any other discussion?

All in favor of the motion aye.

Any opposed, any abstentions?

It passes.

Um John and I, I think the longest serving members left on the on the bench.

So anyway, um but welcome all and welcome to our new commission members.

So uh the first item then uh that we'll move on to will be item B, which is the consideration and possible action on the reclassification of 320 East 20th Street at Texas 7708 in Houston Heights, eats East Historic District from contributing to non-contributing.

Good afternoon, Chair Buchek and members of the Commission.

This is staff member Yasmin Arslan.

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

This item was deferred from August H C last month.

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

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

It is in the Houston Heights East Historic District.

In 2008, when the Heights East Historic District was established by City Council resolution number 2008-4, 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 the aluminum siding.

HCAD shows a build date of 1945, that a permit for construction was issued.

Oh, I'm sorry, for the buildings on the site.

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

Staff and the historic inspector went on a site visit and verified that the building was built in the 1940s.

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

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

Staff have received one letter of support, and we have someone signed up to speak.

That concludes staff presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, guys.

Being at this time I open the public hearing.

We do have one public speaker, and that's Mark Stanridge.

You could please re uh reannounce your your name in the in the microphone for the record.

Good afternoon.

Yes, I'm Mark Standridge, and I'm here representing or in support of 320 West 20th Street reclassification.

We put the document camera.

This is an aerial view of the property.

Thank you.

320 West 20th Street consists of two structures, a warehouse and an office.

Both are currently classified as contributing, and we're requesting that they be reclassified as non-contributing.

The reclassification of this property is not a matter of interpretation, but rather the execution of the requirements set forth in Chapter 33 of the Houston Code of Ordinances and the Heights Historic Design Guidelines.

The Director of Planning has endorsed this and is recommending the pre-classification.

The property's classification is determined by its actual construction date and by the standards of contributing status as close as clearly defined in the ordinance and the guidelines.

If we can put up the next picture.

This clearly demonstrates that the property, as Jasmine said, was constructed in 1945, not 1930.

Therefore, it falls outside of the time period for the significance, period of significance.

So if we could see the next graph.

So one of the things that we are questioning is this is post-World War II construction.

It's not a bungalow, it's not Victorian, it's not craftsman.

This was built after 19 uh after in 1945 after World War II.

The structures lack architectural features that define the Houston Heights.

The setback, the scale, and the massing are inconsistent with the district norms.

The business operated and opened, uh operated as a lumber yard, and it opened in 1945 and it closed in 1973.

Therefore, the period in which this business was operating was outside of the period of significance for the Houston Heights.

So we really don't believe it belongs, it needs to be a contributing structure.

It should be non-contributing.

It sits next picture, please.

Yeah, it sits on the northern edge of the Heights East Historic District, and the streetscape and the context are really a commercial corridor.

On the north side of the street, or which is outside of the historic district or townhomes.

On the south side of 20th Street, we have a variety of commercial buildings that are all non-contributing.

So this has zero setback onto the street.

You walk out the front door onto a step, and the next step is onto the sidewalk.

So there's no setback, and there's no real community involvement in this.

It doesn't really communicate uh contribute anything to the Heights East because it doesn't face any of the North South Streets, Arlington, Columbia, such.

So I have a summary slide.

Is there a second?

Anybody have any questions?

All in favor.

Thank you.

Please proceed, sir.

Okay.

Oh, he didn't.

I did.

Yes.

I heard you say return to your seats, sir.

My apologies.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Bad hearing.

So in summary, we're requesting that this be reclassified as non-contributing.

The building is currently labeled incorrectly as of construction date.

It was constructed in 1945, not 1930.

It's after the period of significance for the Heights East Historic District.

The architectural style is inconsistent with that of the district, and it was without architectural merit.

It has different uh roof lines, different pitches.

It just doesn't fit with the bungalows, the craftsman uh sort of architecture that we see elsewhere in the district.

And the context for the property is uh a commercial corridor on a highly trafficked street.

It's not a neighborhood street.

And so we really believe that all of these factors justify um reclassification of this particular property.

Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the speaker from the commission?

Thank you, sir.

Um is there anyone else that would like to speak on this matter that's in the room?

I I don't have anyone else signed up to speak on this matter.

Okay.

Uh will um ask my commission members if there are any questions of staff or legal.

I have a question for staff.

Please is there some kind of sort of definition of this neighborhood in terms of is there a sort of narrative about what defines the contributing structures in this neighborhood, this district.

So we we weren't here when the survey was done.

Like none of we were here.

None of the staff were on like the historic preservation team.

Um but what we have is the inventory and we also have the heights design guidelines.

We highlighted um where it said period of significance.

Um it does on, I want to say on page eight.

It does uh talk about that, that um um a period of significance usually ends when construction or the association with a person or event ends, and and they gave example for um Glenbrook Valley, and they said for the three Houston Heights historic districts, the 1940s are generally considered the end of the period of significance.

And and that's what um the applicant is also relying on.

And and so um going back to the change of uh designation criteria in Section 33-227C.

It would our the response to that is a question has been raised about the lack of specified and clearly articulated period of significance for the Heights East Historic District and whether this building is outside of the period of significance.

That's what was um that's how it came forward.

Certainly.

Um I know like mayor for our new architectural historian, but typically there was no construction during the war years for resources overseas, and so there was renewed construction in 1945 when the with the conclusion of the the conflict.

So I know um there was very scarce materials at the time in this lumber yard was formed um you know for new construction at the time.

I think most of this is like these sheds that have been they're from the lumber yard that I'm not sure how they're used, or they're storage or just abandoned.

I think there the office was retrofit to housing.

There may have been some housing upstairs, but I think there's some occupation of that structure.

I don't I think there were some questions from the last commission on some of those aspects, but generally speaking, I think the application is because it's it's really after the it's not as it was uh recorded 1930 is the the key is the date discrepancy and the construction is reflects the more modern uh period that was sort of post-war, but is that's my understanding from the and so following up on that on page 29, we have existing photos from the site visit that was done in in March by the um by staff and by the inspector.

So it shows it shows that, and I believe on page 31 there was uh some kind of residence or office on the second floor.

Any questions of staff?

We do have districts that have periods of significance and have significant structures built after those dates.

They tend to be very significant structures, I would say.

Um I can only think of a few um like in Shadow Lawn, for instance.

I can think of one spectacular project.

But um this is sort of an outlier because it's a different type of typology, it's not been in business in 1973, it's been sort of converted to housing for a portion of the property.

Um I believe that's why the director is has um recommended this for consideration.

Right.

Right, I'll retain a motion or further discussion questions.

Is there a motion to accept uh staff's recommendation?

I motion to accept.

Okay.

I have a motion.

Is there a second?

Yes, second.

Are there any other discussion before we vote?

All in favor of the motion.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

I think I need to understand.

Oh, okay.

Okay, motion passes.

We'll move on to the next item, which is item C, consideration and possible action on the following applications for certificate of appropriateness.

Um or more items may be taken in one motion as consent items.

I believe Terrence will give us the slate of numbers and addresses.

Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners, and the public.

I'm staff member Terrence Jackson, and today's staff recommends the following items for action per staff recommendation in one motion.

Item C2 247 West 16th Street, an alteration addition in the Houston Heights West Historic District, recommendation approval.

Item C three 247 West 16th Street, a new construction of a garage or carport in the Houston Heights West Historic District, recommendation approval.

Item C4, 1129 Courtland Street, alteration addition in the High Heights East Historic District, recommendation approval.

Item C5 1129 Courtland Street Alteration of a Garage or Carport in the Houston Heights East Historic District Recommendation Approval.

Item C6 3419 Autobond Place Alteration Add in the Audubon Place Historic District Recommendation Approval.

Item C seven 744 Harvard Street Alteration addition in the Houston Heights South Historic District recommendation approval 1516 Rutland Street alteration addition with the Houston Heights Historic.

I mean, I'm sorry, in the Houston Heights Westoric District, uh approval with conditions, and I want to uh point out that there is a typo or there's a condition that does not apply, and that these are the conditions.

Approval of conditions uh that the addition roof and connection to the existing roof be fixed to avoid pooling.

That's the only condition for this particular um report item C9, 1535 Oxford Street, alteration addition in the Houston Heights East Historic District, approval with conditions item C10, 1008 East 14th Street, alteration addition in the Nor Hill Historic District Recommendation approval with conditions item C11 918 Columbia Street, alteration of windows in the Houston Heights South Historic District Recommend Recommendation Denial of a COA issuance of a COR recommendate approval with conditions.

I'm sorry.

Item C 12, 1932 Albans, an alteration addition of windows, porch or balcony.

This is a landmark, the Joseph and Annie Lugwig Ludwig House recommendation approval C 13, 1907 Decatur Street, new construction of a garage or a carport in the old six ward historic district recommendation approval.

Item 1907 Decatur Street Alteration of the Porch or Balcony in the old stick old six ward historic district recommendation approval.

Item C 15 732 Arlington Street Alteration addition and windows in the Houston Heights South Historic District recommendation approval.

Item C16 1011 Le Green Alteration of Windows in the Nor Hill Historic District Recommendation Approval.

C 17, 1507 Ashland Street, alteration, and this is in the Houston Heights West Historic District recommended recommendation approval.

441 Columbia Street, alteration of windows in the Houston Heights South Historic District, recommendation approval.

C19, 5307 North Main Street, alteration of a sign in the Nor Hill Historic District.

Recommendation approval.

C201426 Austin Street, new construction of a garage or a carport in the Houston Heights West Historic District.

Recommendation approval.

Recommendation approval with conditions.

We're here for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Terrance.

Commission members, are there any of these projects two through 21 that you'd like to pull for individual individual discussion?

Okay, or any other projects.

Okay, I'm gonna open the public hearing.

If you're in the public and you signed up to speak on any of the items two through eight or ten through twenty-one, and you are uh opposed to the the condition that staff has recommended, um you can ask to pull those and we'll discuss them individually number 10 C10 1008 East 14th Street C16 1011 Le Green Street.

Are there any other projects anyone in the public?

If you're opposed to the recommendation, if you if you if you agree with the recommendation, you can stay silent at this I recommend.

Okay, not hearing uh anyone else.

I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Commission members, uh the proposed revised consent agenda is items two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one.

Is there a motion to accept staff's recommendation for these revised items and the recommendations from staff?

So moved.

Second.

First and a second.

Staff has a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions.

I abstain from items 13 and 14.

Staff.

Staff has it.

Very good.

We'll now move on to item one.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the HHC.

This is once again Staff Person Terrence Jackson, and today I submit to you item C01 at 1138 West View Gate.

The property previously included a contributing 1,216 square foot one-story wood frame home built circa 1925 circa 1925 with a detached garage situated on a 5,000 square foot corner lot.

The original structure no longer remains, and the only thing existing is the foundation.

The applicant is proposing to seek approval for the demolition of a contributing structure.

The home significantly but partially collapsed during construction of the new previously approved addition.

Due to the threat of life and safety, safety significantly destabilized house posed as seen by the city.

The owner, the owner demolished the house per city request.

Owners submitted the B28 form to to the public to public works, I'm sorry, on June 5th, 2025, stating that the demolition factor was 2.80.

They also propose the new construction, they propose to present the new construction of the design, which is part of the demolition COA, which you will see at the end of this uh report.

For the new construction, the applicant is proposing to construct a 1,485 square foot first floor and a 1,410 square foot second floor, bringing the livable square footage to 2,895 square feet with a 520 square foot garage attached to the second floor, totaling 3,415 square feet.

They're also proposing to construct, as I mentioned, the 520 square foot garage.

They will include a ridge height of 25 feet 10 inches and a 20 feet two-inch plate height.

They propose to construct the addition with inset and recess windows.

And it will be constructed with cementitis, will be clad with cementitious siding.

They propose to include a 15-foot seven-inch by nine-foot 10-inch rear porch with the square footage above with square footage above, and it should be constructed with a four-foot rear setback, a 14-foot side setback at Studio Wood, and a four-foot setback at the neighboring property line.

They also propose construct the home with four over twelve roof pitch and a six over twelve roof pitch.

Staff recommended denial of a COA and issuance of a COR for demolition without a permit, which is customary practice for all projects that perform work without a COA and or a permit.

Staff has already also recommended denial for the proposed new construction as it does not meet the criteria for new construction in a historic district.

The HPAB, the Historic Appeals Board has reprimanded has remanded this project back to the HHC to review the new construction as part of the demolition application.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Terrence.

At this time, I'm going to open the public hearing.

We do have a number of members signed up to speak on this item.

The first uh person who was signed up to speak is Kate Simmons.

If you could restate your name in the microphone for the record.

Hello, my name is Kate Saveds.

I am representing vet renovations.

I would like to make a few points regarding the recommended denial of the new construction COA for 1138 Fugate Street.

There is no new construction on the block face.

There are only two story houses.

The only two-story house on the block face is 1102 Fugate, and planning is choosing not to recognize it.

Otherwise, there are all one-story houses.

As such, it is unfair to limit the context area to the block face given the ordinance permits.

The commission to look outside the block face if there are no comparable examples.

If you look outside the block face, there are several very similar examples to the proposed plans for 1138 Fugate.

Those houses may not be new construction, but they are best examples the Commission will be able to find on recent alterations and additions.

VET is doing its best to build a house that will fit into the context of the Greater Nor Hill neighborhood.

We have made every effort to find houses in Norhill that have been approved and have been built.

We've brought these examples to planning.

In particular, 901 Key Street, less than a five-minute walk away from 1138 Fugate Street.

If 901 Key was approved, there is no good reason to deny a COA for 1138 Fugate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the speaker?

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you for the opportunity to talk for a few minutes.

My name is Mary Emily Schultz.

I'm a resident of Norrhill on Petty Street.

And I just want to say a few words about why the historical environment of Petty of Nor Hill is very important, very unique, and is the reason why I chose to move out of other parts of the heights into Norr Hill in 2013.

And so that I can stay on point and move right along quickly.

The conformity of the houses is unique and gives value to its properties worth.

People can proudly maintain their bungalows without fear of their being torn down and replaced by much larger new constructions, which is the case elsewhere in the heights.

And that's one reason I moved out of that other part of the heights.

For the neighborhood to grow forward, improvements must be allowed in existing houses, but the character of the remodelings must not sacrifice what makes Norhill special.

Allowing very large additions changes the scale and affordability of the neighborhood.

In Norhill, you can stand in your backyard and see the sky.

You can sit on your porch and talk to your neighbors.

Large additions reduce green space, they reduce light, but most importantly, they diminish the character of the original bungalows by overpowering and overshadowing them.

Move to extend time.

One minute.

Please proceed.

Just one paragraph.

The design proposed here for this lot extends all the way back to four feet from the property line.

It has a second floor porch looming over the house behind.

It creates a 56-foot long two-story wall.

In short, it changes the very fabric, the special fabric that makes Norhill so special.

And I think we have some photos that we'll show on this.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Virginia Kelsey.

I'm the VP of Deed Restrictions for the Nor Hill Neighborhood Association.

If historic neighborhoods are to survive, there must be consequences for actions that result in the destruction of historic homes.

The owner disposed of all the salvageable brick which was removed.

During the remodeling, significant portions of the shiplap and framing were removed.

Anyone familiar with the basic building practices of historic homes understands that removing the ship lap would destroy the structural integrity.

Norhill has been working with the city for many years to pass guidelines.

Feeling our neighborhood is in imminent danger of losing its unique character, Norhill passed the neighbor Norhill Neighborhood Association guidelines based on the city's polling and draft documents to define what is harmony and what harmony means to Norrill.

The city and Norhill approved the plans for the remodeling and addition to the original home.

After the collapse of the house on June 12th, the owner submitted a design primarily in keeping with the original approved remodeling design.

Norhill reviewed these plans for a new house and made a few minor requests for it to be in compliance with our design guidelines.

The owner is now asking not to rebuild what was lost, but to build a house which is completely out of scale with the historic Norrhill.

It is 2895 square feet with a floor area of 0.58.

To put this in perspective, there are only 14 out of 940 homes with a far over 0.49.

And I do want to add this comment based on their on their situation.

It went to arbitration and details have been sealed.

Move to extend speaker's time by a minute.

Is there a second?

All in favor.

Please proceed.

So the details were sealed and it couldn't be appealed.

In addition to the square footage, the design they are now requesting is too close to the street, the plate height is too tall, with a second floor and floor structure which is too big.

Most importantly, Norr Hill is not approving houses connecting to or extending over garages.

Second floor additions must be 19 feet from the rear property line, not the four feet of this design.

In summary, the owner did not employ standard building practices, which resulted in the collapse of the structure, and is now requesting to build a house which is not in harmony with Norrhill.

As a path forward to the owner, Norrhill requests approval of their June 12th design and to deny the proposal before you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Hello.

Hi, my name is Letha Allen.

I'm uh on the Norhill board.

Um I oppose this plan as it's presented.

Um I've lived in Normill for five years and been on the board for three years, and this is the first time I've come here to speak.

And you may not believe it, but I'm an attorney and also have a planning degree and have spoken at at other forums like this.

Um this um demolition was preventable.

Um and in my opinion, it was a wasteful, very wasteful and shameful occurrence.

Um this is a very prominent intersection in Norhill.

It's um if you get and studywood.

Um it's where most people experience Norhill.

It's uh across from the Shiloh Club, I think is what it's called, which is a very well-known um bar.

Um anyway, it's it serves as a gateway to our neighborhood.

So um as is normal, this could result um this approving this plan would um kind of be could be a slippery slope.

It serves as a precedent, just as um key is see is seen as a precedent.

The Key Street property you referred to earlier is seen as a um a precedent.

This could also serve as a precedent.

But the fact that it's at a prominent intersection makes it even um more dangerous.

It's not in a quiet corner of the neighborhood that someone can ignore.

It is it is what the public sees as Norhill.

And the current 3,000 approaching 3,000 square foot house is completely out of scale and is not what Norhill was designed to be, which is uh neighborhood of modest bungalows.

So um please once again uh oppose this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um we have one more speaker sign up, which is Brian Wilson.

Hello.

Um I am the I'm actually the immediate next door neighbor of the property 1138 Feugate.

I live at 1136 View Gate.

Um since first wanted mentioned since first speaking uh with the owner several months ago.

We have uh my wife and I, um I've lived there for 15 years or so, um, have eagerly anticipated the long overdue renovation of this property, um, which suffered from lat just just uh lack of maintenance over the past 15 years, um, and probably longer than that.

I fully supported the plans submitted on June 12th for a 2,250 square foot home with detached garage based on the previously approved alteration and addition of the existing house.

However, I do not support the new proposal submitted on August 6th for a roughly 2,900 square foot new construction.

Uh this design is much larger than any approved project by the Norhill Neighborhood Association, and as as was has been mentioned uh previously, the floor area ratio is about 0.58 on this 5,000 square foot lot.

Um by comparison, the Houston Heights design guidelines limits the FAR to 0.46, which would be 2300 square feet, and the NNA design guidelines limit the FAR to 0.45, so 2250, which coincides with the approved plans from before.

Um the following items are concerning with the new design.

Uh first, I uh consider this height, massing, and privacy.

Uh the new design uses 24-inch trusses between the floors rather than the typical 2x12 Joyce.

The nine-foot second floor plate height is not typical.

We is what's typically approved uh in Norhill by the design guidelines, actually, is an eight-foot plate height.

Um the new design significantly increases the second story size relative to that approved design on June 12th.

The second story rear porch looking down into the neighbor's yard is also a little bit concerning with privacy concerns there.

Um other item is setbacks.

So the original home right now or was as long as I've lived there, of course, as long as it's been constructed.

10 foot four, 10 10 foot four inches side setback from my property line.

Motion to grant the speaker an additional minute.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor.

Please proceed for one minute.

Uh the new design is only a four-foot setback.

Um, so instead of the 10 foot four and only four foot at the rear as well.

Um the above concerns will fundamentally alter the character of this property while intruding on the privacy of mine and the rear neighbors on this block and the adjacent, so for in a three-block area.

We we've talked about you know comparative properties in a three-block area, this block, the the 1100 block of West Millwood, and the same at West Gardner.

Um, only one other house, which is 1102 Feugate at the end of this block has comparable dimensions, and that project was never approved by either the NA board or the HC.

Um, for these reasons I ask that the HHC deny the application for the proposed new construction at 1138 Feugate and require the owner's rebuild within the footprint that was already approved, the reference June 12th design.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public that would like to address this item?

Please announce yourself at this time and approach the microphone.

Okay, not hearing.

I'm going to close close the public hearing.

Terrence, I believe there will be some questions from Commission members.

This many of our members are new, obviously, and this project has been before us for a number of previous meetings for various um uh aspects.

Um can you restate um that the first was an issue with the the brick uh fell down on part of the structure and then um there's an issue with the brick that left the property.

But after that, um a C of A was applied for uh and so what what you've been showing on the screen um is a C of A, which some of the speakers have referred to as an addition to the historic home.

Yes.

And we may need to at some point put that up and compare that to again to the newly proposed structure.

Um what you're seeing in these pictures right here is that in the course of building for that approved C of A.

Um shiplock was removed, a number of walls were removed and the house fell down.

And and it as Terrence mentioned, it became a public uh safety issue.

If a child were to sneak into the this work site at night and for the collapse, this this would be an issue.

So the structure was taken down, and uh in our last meeting, Pete Stockton appeared before the commission discussing the demolition of the structure, the definition of demolition, and there's a there's a chart in your app in the application about demolition, and we may need to um so uh as for my commission members, part of the discussion today is in um, and I may need help from uh Kim, but part of our discussion is that uh demolition has occurred at this address, and there are provisions in the ordinance regarding demolition.

Uh there is some discretion amongst this commission, nonetheless.

Um this applicant had a C of A for uh an addition that was um smaller than what they're now asking for total new construction.

And so I think that's uh the sort of three things we need to look at.

And I think you may have questions, um Commissioner Blakely.

Uh first of all, I would just like to ask a clarification question of staff.

Yes, ma'am.

It says here recommendation denial of COA and issuance of a COA for demolition.

Is that should be denial of a C O A issuance of a C O R.

C O R okay.

Yes, ma'am.

Sorry about that.

And why are we not treating this as an illegal demolition since the neglect of the homeowner led to the collapse of the contributing structure?

Uh so based on what the appeals board ruled, the appeals board ruled to remove the illegal demolition tag from the from the uh from the HHC's decision and to bring it back to you guys to rule up or down is what was actually said.

And um because uh and and legal can correct me if I'm wrong, but now it I remember you had an issue because it was an incomplete application.

So now that we have the new design, that demolition is now a complete application, and the HPAB felt that you guys should rule on this and make a decision on it because you had not seen the new construction.

Terrence, my understanding.

Well, I'll just say this.

My understanding is that there was at the appeals board there was some new evidence or photographs presented to the appeals board that was not presented to this commission in our last meeting.

Is that my understanding correctly by staff?

No, by the applicant about additional shoring of their structure or the assertion that it was short.

Yes.

The assertion that it was short, yes, sir.

But but there was some additional information presented to the appeals board that was not presented by the applicant to the commission to in our last meeting.

Is uh correct.

And um their staff also had photos that we received from Pete Stockton.

Um I don't know if I want to say if that combats that theory, but I just we just um we we received additional photos from Pete Stockton, which are the photos with the circles on them, which were taking the day of the collapse.

So um Yes, sir.

So my understanding is that staff doesn't draw the uh staff staff's recommendation has not changed based on any new photos submitted by Commissioner Cosgrove.

So what was their rationale for changing our decision?

Um I believe it was the illegal demolition and the rationale was um based upon the fact that um staff reached out to the owner and told the owner that this was uh a hazard and it needed to come down.

So their counsel, their legal counsel argued that fact and said that um how could this his argument basically was how could this be a COR if they were indeed told to demolish the house?

So this it should not be coming back to should not be coming to appeals for the approval of a COA or COR.

And we're bound by that decision.

Yeah.

Okay.

I mean they they are entitled to receive and rule on new information.

You didn't have it as noted.

And I think that was the the intent of the presentation to the HPAB at that time.

Yeah, was to get the illegal language removed, um, so it didn't show fault, perhaps.

Um I'm not sure if that was truly part of it.

That's kind of how I read it.

And then that they could then proceed with with rebuilding in some form or fashion, and that's what they're sending back to you.

Okay.

So now that that's clear for me, let me address the new construction.

So before we do that, I want to make sure because it hasn't been done.

We received uh uh edited plans from the uh owners.

I would like to submit this to the record.

Oh yes, please.

Document camera.

And I mean it's it's pretty much everything that you guys are looking at except for the second floor roof line has been hiped.

So I'll just go to the elevations.

Um there are no floor plan changes that I have recognized, unfortunately, they won't be able to see it out here.

Um but as you can see, the roof line has been hipped, and uh that's basically the change that's hip on both sides, uh the front at and at the rear.

So free to address it.

It's hard for me to support it simply because new construction should be a product of its own time.

And this design creates a false history.

That's you you're trying to mimic something that occurs naturally in the historic district, but this is not not that.

This is new construction and therefore should be a product of its own time.

It shouldn't, it shouldn't resemble any other house, you know, that's a contributing structure.

It should borrow elements from the contribute contributing structures, but it should not try to copy it.

So you know, I think I think moving forward, they should bring a design that does not do that.

It becomes a product of its own time, and we can clearly see that that's a new house infilled into a historic neighborhood and not one designed to to kind of mimic what naturally occurs in the district.

I would just like to maybe respond to that.

Um it seems to me that an effort was made in this design that we're looking at to simulate a kind of existing bungalow to which something somewhat differently in different in its details has been added.

And I I appreciate that approach.

My concerns are more with the scale and the setback issues.

Um if I look if I'm evaluating this as new construction in a historic district, we're asked to look at the distance from the property line from the front and side walls uh to the boundaries of the site.

We're asked to look at the new exterior features of the new construction and their compatibility with the exterior features of existing contributing structures in the context area.

I would say that's I see an effort in this design in that direction.

But the scale and proportions of the new construction seem out of keeping with the typical homes in Norhill.

I know there are exceptions and and some of them are along Stewedwood precisely.

Uh but I I don't think that that sets an example that's in keeping with the ordinance.

I think on the contrary, we should uh respect the scale and the scale of the plant, the dimensions of the plan, the eve height, and another respects the proportions of the new construction need to be closer to what is the typical contributing home in the area.

And the fourth criterion is as to the height.

I think I already addressed that.

So I would say if I look at our criteria, it fails.

This latest proposal fails to satisfy three out of four of the criteria.

Commissioner Davis.

So this may be a legal question, because I have a level of confusion.

We have two things in front of us.

One is the uh demol uh COA for a demolition and then a separate for new construction.

It would seem that we have to do the first before we can talk about the second, because they're intertwined.

If the first, if the the staff is recommending denial of the demolition, then I don't know if that is because they are saying it is an illegal demolition and therefore there are a whole nother skew of things that have to be done for new construction and a delay of new construction.

Or and if that's not what they're saying, I'm not sure why there would be a denial of the COA since it's already demolished.

I'll ask staff to repeat the recommendation just on the C of A, but I understood it to be that it was still denial of the C of A for demolition.

However, approval of the C of R as it was ruled out by HPAB without calling it an illegal demolition.

Am I accurate in that?

Yes.

And then separately, as you note, and there are technically two items.

You may take them as one if you agree with staff's recommendation on both, or you may vote on them separately.

Is that based on the presentation from Pete in our last meeting?

My understanding that once it fell, the structure was demolished in the pictures that we see, he assessed those that condition that was presented in these images as demolished.

And that's prior to removal of the material, which is what was uh referred to by the speaker, uh, the first speaker.

So the confusion, there are many people confused here because when it fell down because of lack of shoring, or it it may have had some shoring, but it apparently didn't have enough adequate shoring because obviously it fell over.

So it once it fell over, it was effectively demolished per the city.

Uh we have a chart that just says X amount of square feet of this these different components.

So that's that's I think that's where the discussion happened in our last meeting.

In my understanding, in the appeals board, additional photographs were presented by the applicant of additional shoring, but again, that shoring wasn't enough when every all the walls were removed, and there wasn't enough to resist any lateral forces.

The second issue that you you have raised is that the but the applicant did have a C approved C of A to make an addition to their home that was standing nonetheless.

And this commitment my understanding from the appeals board, they'd like us to vote up or down or on a clear item.

And what I my question for legal is this.

We could um we can vote on the application that has been before us, up or down.

Um I still believe it would be a uh another option would if to if that's let's say that failed, the commission could vote to allow the C of A that was already approved to be reconstructed as it was approved, even though the whole thing will be new, but the front edition would match the the home that was there and the rear edition would be the addition that was approved as a C of A.

And that is still within the purview of this commission.

We we that we have the deference to come to some resolution.

Um that's that's my question.

I I think that is probably correct.

I'm not sure we've ever seen this type of a situation.

We've never seen this before, right?

Right.

So um I would ask if the prior plans are available for viewing.

I do think you also have the option of looking at the plans that were submitted.

They're in the application.

No, after the deadline.

The the ones that were put up on the document camera.

On the document camera.

A third option, yes.

The that's the revised ones, correct, Terrence.

Yes, ma'am, that's correct.

So you could.

They were not in those, I believe, were not included in your packet because they came in so late.

Yes, ma'am, that's correct.

And you know, because of the new posting deadlines, everybody's trying to get everything it all put together for you all as quickly as possible.

And these came in too late.

And if you needed more time to look at those or evaluate even really all three, you could defer the item.

That's still an option as well.

Understood.

But I guess from your perspective, at least or my question is we have the approved C of A, we have what's submitted in the packet, and we have what was just slipped into the document camera.

Correct.

Those three items could be one of those three items, or all of them could be evaluated by this commission and or other options that have yet to be discussed.

I believe so.

And that would at least satisfy the at least if those three were looked at, that would be identiful, identifiable, and for the appeals board, which this may or may not go to could at least understand what that was based on in the will of this commission.

Correct.

Within your discretion.

Okay.

So with that, I'm going to open up questions from Commission members for discussion.

And um I know we have a lot of new members, but this is you're gonna this is baptisable by fire, I guess.

Initiation.

Commissioner Blankley, I'm sorry.

Yeah.

I don't want to sort of monopolize the speaking, but um I wanted to pick up on your uh I think what you suggested a moment ago, which was that did the possibility of going back to the scheme for which a COVID issued.

Um I I think that would be a good path in terms of making sure that the scale and proportion are respected.

I think it would also conflict with our our our sort of instructions to not support a kind of simulation, uh a new construction that tries to simulate the old.

Um because then you're sort of muddying the waters about what that uh old um style was.

So uh maybe there needs to be a fourth, a fourth option, which I think has been mentioned would be to build to to propo make a new proposal, a revised proposal that adheres to the dimensions of the one for which the COA was uh issued, but without simulating the original style.

So for this item uh for legal um if one wanted to vote, I mean I think they I think that I'm gonna ask for a motion ultimately on what was submitted uh and whether and we could again we could put the document camera up and vote on the revised submitted draw, you know, drawing just because it's it is very similar actually to what's in the packet.

But but depending on what that vote is, if what I'm understanding from your suggestion, Mr.

Blakely is that the form of that the massing could remain this, but it would need to not look old, of our time.

And I would suggest at that point we'd have to defer because we'd have to have another drawing for them to create what that would be.

Um I think essentially what my basic that there's a conflict, I think, between what staff has reported about how the House came undone and what the appeals board ruled.

The difference there is just that if it is illegal demolition, as Mr.

Davis mentioned, then there's prescriptively the applicant cannot build back more square footage than existed on the property until the certain time period has passed.

So my understanding is that from the appeals board, that option is not part of our current discussion.

So there's not need to discuss that.

And so we're either looking for what form we think massing is appropriate, and because it's new construction now we have, you know, it's a false pass question.

So again, this is the first time we've had this scenario happen.

But the one time this occurred um where there was a willful demolition, the commission did allow the front structure to be rebuilt matching what was there, and the the addition that had been approved for C of A was also allowed.

So we we have done that.

That's because this is the only other time this is like the second time that this has happened.

Um but in that case we did, just so you all are familiar, we did deny them the ability to build an accessory unit on the on the property as it was classified as an illegal demolition.

So we were in my opinion, courageous enough to let them build it was a single-story house with a single story just rear addition that was not visible from the right-of-way.

But we did did not allow them to do any other site improvements.

Right.

Gingerberg.

Just a question.

Are are they asking though to have that option?

It looks like the proposed um plan here is they're accepting the owners are accepting that that original that it's gone now, and so they have a new proposal of a new construction.

So I'm wondering if they would even be open to rebuilding what was there and accepting that previously approved um design, the addition.

Just a thought.

That's a question we would normally ask the applicant if they were here in the room uh this at this moment.

But they are the application.

Well, I mean, we can ask that question.

Yeah, they were one of the things that we're doing.

Is that no, because it wasn't an illegal demolition.

And also I would like to add some screen.

You have to come up and state your name.

This is a question, so you can speak on the microphone and can restate your name.

Allowed, please.

Kate Simmons, uh representing VET.

It was not an illegal demolition, and I would like to add some context for some of the harmful rhetoric that's been discussed today.

The day of the collapse was the day that we had a significant storm come through the heights.

High winds caused destruction across the neighborhood.

Whether or not it was because of the demolition's team, their fault or the storm has not been decided.

So stating that it was just faulty demolition, it there was a very strong wind storm that day.

Additionally, I was there when the historic department, the city of Houston, numerous times approved the removal of that historic brick.

Over and over again, the owner called and said, Are you sure I will not get rid of a single brick if you tell me not to?

And this department, the committee, and the city of Houston all agreed, yes, get rid of it.

We have no use for it, you can remove it.

Come a few months later, now all of a sudden it's used as an attack towards the owners.

So it was not an illegal demolition.

That's why it's not open to discussing the original design.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I please don't.

Terrence.

Um sorry, but some things I just don't know how to respond to.

Um I would like to say that um I was on a site visit when I received a call.

Um not far away from North Hill.

Um there was a drizzle.

Um, and I'll leave it at that.

As far as the brick is concerned, um there were not several calls made to me.

Okay.

I I'm the planner on the project.

There were not several calls made to me about the brick.

Um we did go to the site, Pete Stockton, the uh historic inspector and I.

Pete did mention getting rid of the brick because you would not be able to match it.

The follow the comment made directly after that was do not get rid of the brick until the HAHC makes a decision.

That was reiterated two or three times.

Was it heard?

I don't know.

I'll leave that at that point.

Thank you, Chair.

Well, Mr.

Davis first.

Okay.

But I'm pretty sure I just heard that it is irrelevant whether it was an illegal demolition or not.

An illegal demolition.

That is what are under the bridge.

What we now have to determine is what can be built there.

Um I'm not sure.

I I I don't know, there is no guidance to say that we should have them build a replica.

Um, and and that would be kind of as a punishment, I guess.

Um, as opposed to allowing them to do a new construction.

So I think we're off the illegal demolition and on to what can we put back and why.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, please.

Commissioner Blakely, could you please restate the option number four that you proposed a few minutes ago, and then could the applicant tell us whether or not they would be open to that option?

And then could the applicant tell us whether or not they would be open to that option.

So it was to build to bring us a proposal that fits the scale and proportions, height, and other characteristics of what was uh what the COA was issued for, right?

So not just what had been there before.

And I'm we're not allowed to advocate a simulation of what was there.

So this would be a proposal for a new construction that would have to fit our criteria for new construction in a historic district.

If we do set aside the question of whether the demolition was legal or illegal, these criteria still uh apply.

And the proposed new construction does not align with them.

Uh so the option four was bring us a proposal for a new construction that meets the criteria for new construction in a historic district.

Commissioner Blakely, I'll just say, I mean, I think this commission may need to vote on the proposal before us, up or down as well.

I mean, in addition, um to just to test the waters with the with the full commission that because the applicant they may just ask us to vote up or down on what what has been presented.

And then depending on that vote, may other discussions may also occur.

So I think maybe heeding legal's advice that we should separate the two issues, because we can certainly vote on the first one.

Um in the second one, I would probably at this point, given the conversation we're having and having three or four options and the fact that the current design doesn't really meet the guidelines that we would defer the second one and allow them time to develop something that better meets the guidelines if we're treating it as new construction, so that it would be a product of its own time and that it would also fit from a scale and massing standpoint with the contributing structures in the neighborhood.

I can make that a motion if you like.

I I entertain motions at all times.

Um the meeting.

Is there a second?

I second.

Any other discussion?

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions, those motions pass?

And we will move on to the no, we have to do that was just the one.

Oh, sorry, that was so I would then move on the set to defer item the second portion of it.

The new construction.

The new construct defer the new construction and advise the the applicant that they should read the ordinance and you know pay attention to the size, the massing, the scale of the contributing structures in the context area, which is defined in the ordinance.

Um you know, that it should not try to mimic necessarily all the elements of properties that are adjacent.

Is there a second to that motion?

Sorry.

Any other discussion?

All in favor of that motion.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, motion passes.

And I believe we'll move on to item nine.

That helps that afternoon.

Uh Chair Boch, members of the commission.

This is Staff Member Oslan.

I submit for your consideration agenda item C9 at 1535 Oxford Street.

The site contains a non-contributing two-story frame residence and a two-story frame detached garage situated on a 6600 square foot interior lot.

It's an altered residence constructed circa 1935, located in the Houston Heights Historic District East.

The applicant is proposing the following to alter uh the fenestration and um a few windows on the main um on on the elevation and to alter the main entrance on this non-contributing two-story house.

The applicant proposes to add square footage on the first and second floor.

Applicant also proposes to connect the main house to the garage with a with a porch on the first floor and to connect the garage apartment on the second floor to the main house with an uncovered breezeway.

All new windows proposed will need to be inset and recessed.

Staff recommends approval with conditions that the applicant creates an inset after the existing corner before the addition on the north elevation for two feet to meet the heights measurable standards for site setbacks, cumulative setbacks, and sidewall length.

And the architect has signed up to speak.

Staff is available for any questions.

Thank you.

At this time, I will open up the public hearing.

Yes, sir.

Okay, put it.

I have not done this before, so I was like, is it my turn?

Um hi, my name is Courtney Thomas.

Um I am the architect uh working for Bob and Patty who uh own the property.

Um I first of all want to thank y'all for your time and consideration on this project and um your dedication to making Houston historic area beautiful.

Um with this property, we sort of went through it and did like a big bigger expansion and reduced down to this smaller piece.

Um and in that, knowing it's not a contributing structure, um, and we're meeting the square footage and the property lot um pieces.

We were hoping that we could um also stick with on one side basically the property um is not set back five feet.

The existing structure is set back like three feet three inches.

And in when we were doing the design, we wanted to stick with that original intent of the architect in symmetry and in space.

Um basically when you like what look at the front of the structure um that one uh geometry when you look back, we wanted it to feel especially on the first floor like it is one piece and not have like a setback when you look through the whole house.

Um so we really wanted to sort of push back a little bit on these items to also make the interior space beautiful for the people that are living in it.

Um so it's non-contributing.

Um both of these pieces are located at the back of the property where you won't see them.

Um the property also sits on the interior, it's not a corner lot.

Um, we're trying to keep with the original setback, and we're sort of right at the edge of the district.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any questions of the speaker?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else in the public who wants to address this item?

Please announce yourself.

Okay, I'll close the public hearing for now.

And um, I guess uh for staff, could you restate your um recommendation?

Sure.

Staff recommends approval with conditions that the applicants create an inset after the existing corner before the addition on the north elevation for two feet to meet the heights measurable standards for site setbacks and sidewall length.

And yes, I mean that's just part of the prescriptive requirements of the guidelines.

Yes.

So if this was one story, the the heights design guidelines allow her to meet um the current site setback that she has.

But because it's two-story, it it does specify in the heights design guidelines that it has to be um at five, and also the cumulative site setbacks has to be 15, which I believe now is 13 something.

Um for a two-story uh sidewall length, it has to be 40, and with the proposed addition, now it's over 40.

That's that's why um reading the measurable standards.

Staff felt that um we have to mention that that condition will will solve that.

Is it possible to put up that standard for the commission members that are new?

Mr.

Can you yeah, if you zoom in on the Mr.

Crossword, did you did you have a question?

I cut you off.

I mean, I have this so I just wanted to make a comment that I mean I recognize that it's non-contributing, but I've always kind of thought of non when we make alterations to non-contributing structures that they should attempt to be consistent and compatible with the contributing structures, and I just find the east elevation, you know, this house is fairly charming from the front.

It it it certainly fits into the neighborhood, maybe minus the carport extension, but this protruding kind of second floor, you know, that's right up at the street level, really changes the appearance of the house.

And you know, I just I don't find it to be very sympathetic to the his contributing structures in the historic districts.

Thank you.

Any other discussion or questions, questions of staff?

Commissioner Davis.

Okay, so just um for clarification, since it is a non-contributing structure that looks like a contributing structure.

Um not sure why it's not contributing, but I'm sure there must be a good reason.

Um so then, and all of this is going on at the back of the structure, correct?

And it is it visible from the street?

May I respond?

So um this was built in 1935, but because um when they served they it was heavily altered that they decided that this is not contributing anymore.

Um and then the the second part is alterations to non-contributing structures can be administrative.

If the percentage of the alterations are 67 percent and um and and less.

Um with the alterations of the fenestration, the additions, the porch, and um and the breezeway and and the square footage that is being added, um uh staff felt that this is going beyond the 67 percent, and that is why it is appearing in front of you.

Um in heights design guidelines, whether it's contributing or not contributing, the measurable standards treat the buildings the same.

The criteria is different, but like if you're building a new construction that is non-contributing, it still has to meet the five foot setback, for example, and and so on.

Yeah, you're welcome.

So I think the condition, but you you approve of the submission with the condition that it meet the measurable standard.

Uh right.

And and it it's a case it it's a case by case.

Um sometimes the commission in certain unique situations do feel that they might um let go of a certain condition, but from staff points of view um we we we typically uh want to make sure that it meets measurable standards.

Thank you.

Is that clear?

Is that any other questions?

Um is there a motion or I make a motion that we approve um staff recommendations with conditions?

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Any other discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

Any abstentions passes on to item 100%?

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha De Leon.

I submit item C 10 at 1008 East 14th Street in Norhill for your consideration.

The House is a contributing 1,976 square foot two-story wood framed single family residence constructed circa 1926, situated on a 5,250 square foot interior lot.

The applicant is proposing to add a 538 square foot addition to the second floor with the roof pitch to match the existing home, is the existing historic home.

The applicant plans to make the addition eve height 20 feet and 10 inches, and the ridge height is proposed to be at 28 feet four inches.

Sighting is proposed to be a three and a half inch fiber cement siding reveal with the proposed one over one Geldwin wood win uh Geldwin wood windows towards the rear.

Staff recommends approval with conditions that the second floor plate height be lowered to eight feet and that the roof of the second floor addition be hip.

Chairs and chair and members of the commission, the agent Sam Gianukos is available to speak.

I am also available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Samantha.

I will at this time I'll open the public hearing.

I have a couple of speakers signed up.

Uh starting with Sam.

Let him go first.

You get a rebuttal if well if you go first.

I mean, it's up to you.

All right, I can go first.

As the applicant I will give you some welcome everybody to move.

That's it's exciting, isn't it?

Uh Sam with Creole Design.

I've been in the heights since 76, and um and I'm up here a lot, unfortunately or fortunately.

Um this particular house has an existing two-story addition on it, which only takes up half the house.

They built it from the uh low-burying wall to the right side of the exterior wall.

Well, it was really poorly done, and in the back, it actually has a seven-foot ceiling in this little space in the back.

So when I met with the client, they wanted to add on to it.

I said, Well, we ought to take this second floor off and just widen it so we have we're wall to wall, we're at the back of the house.

We're 28 feet back from uh from the back property line, so we're we don't run into those kind of problems.

And and we're only adding 500 square feet to it.

We meet all of the city code.

We meet all the deed restrictions that uh are in place in Norhill.

Um has a three-foot side setback.

They have a 40-foot ridge height in their deed restrictions.

We're under all of their deed restrictions.

So um, so I felt like this would go through.

Now I met with Samantha, she said, hey, make a hip roof on the front of it and drop your plate height on the second floor from nine to eight, which we did.

And I think it I think it looks I think it looks good there.

And I think that's why we got approved.

Thank you.

Yep.

The next speaker is Virginia Kelsey.

I'm Virginia Kelsey.

I'm the deed restrictions vice president of Norhill.

Um, even though the owner, Sam, nor the owner, Sam, Sam's not the owner, I'm sorry, neither owner or Sam with Creole Design, they have not submitted the plans to Norhill.

The board reviewed the submission material from what was available online for its compliance with our NNA guidelines, which have been formally approved by the board.

They're recorded with the state, they're legally binding.

Though HAHC is not obligated to follow the NNA guidelines, they do serve to define what is in harmony with our neighborhood.

They are based on the polling by the city and the draft that the city has developed.

The house's previous addition has a low second floor plate height that respects the original bungalow, but minimum minimizes its impact.

Can you put the document camera?

The proposed design is too tall at nine-foot plate.

Norhill does not approve any second floor, which is has a plate height taller than eight feet.

Owners could easily vault the inside as they wish.

The proposed design is 25-24 square feet.

The neighborhood consensus for maximum house size for this lot is 2250.

With all the addition being on the second floor, the massing overpowers the original bungalow, both in terms of its height and size.

Currently, the house appears to sit less than three feet from the side property line.

With the second floor being removed and replaced, the floor plan for the second floor is different than the existing.

And I'm done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello again.

Um I am Lita Allen.

I live in Norhill, a few streets away from 14th Street.

Um I just wanted to reiterate reiterate the points that Virginia ha has made about we asked that the height be reduced, the size be reduced, and the setback be changed to our guidelines.

About we asked that the height be reduced, the size be reduced, and the setback be changed to our guidelines.

2500 square feet is too large for Norhill.

We are not the heights.

We are not, we I guess we are considered part of the greater heights.

We are not the heights or woodland heights, which I think is confusing to some people.

We are a neighborhood composed of modest houses that were some smaller than a a thousand square feet that still exist at that size.

So the per the people that I looked at each HCAD and determined that the owners bought this house five years ago.

They would have understood these expectations when they bought into our neighborhood if they did any sort of due diligence.

But it's very out of scale for Norhill.

And once again, it would set a poor precedent to approve this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other member of the public who is not signed to speak on this item?

Would like to speak, please announce yourself.

If not, Sam, you do have the opportunity to have a rebuttal.

Sam Janukas Creole Design.

And as far as the design guidelines go, there are no design guidelines in Norrill.

That that is four people that got together and voted on these design guidelines.

And now they say they filed it of record, which to me is clouding title, because there are no design guidelines in Norrill currently.

I think there's going to be some in the next month or so.

But that whole story about design guidelines and telling people there's a design guidelines.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I will close the public hearing at this time.

And Commissioner members, are there questions of staff or any other?

Yes, I've I've got a question, please.

And as a new member, forgive me if this is overly simplistic.

If I'm understanding what just happened, and we've got uh the builder/slash owner agreeing to reduce the height to eight feet and hipping.

Um and therefore uh it seems like the neighbors are addressing one of the approval criteria through Norhill's own building restrictions, um, which if I understand correctly is something I suppose we can consider under our approval criteria, but we are not bound by.

Well, we're we're not bound.

The the only criteria that this commission is bound by is are things that are recommended approval by the commission or previous commissions and are that have been approved by City Council.

So we're essentially we're under the basic criteria of the ordinance that that's what we're bound by.

Um there are um there there have been discussions with um the Norhill Association and members to create guidelines and uh and they are working their way through the system, and I'm not perhaps Mr.

Williamson can tell us when those will you know come out.

Typically, we're they're gonna if this there's another process to happen, it will come before this commission, and when like when we vote on things, we're not approving anything.

We're we're just recommending to City Council that they um approve something.

But at this time, those design guidelines are not part of our purview.

If if by is that's my from uh from our legal counsel, that is what I understand.

So we have the ordinance um and the criteria and staff has a recommendation.

So um the dropping the plate to eight feet and making hip is what was on the drawing that was presented on the screen, is my understanding.

Quick question.

Uh staff person Samantha De Leon.

So uh Sam was not able to get them back to me, but he does have a physical copy that I can show.

It's a rendering with the hipped roof and the lowered plate height if you'd like to see that.

I think that'd be helpful.

Yeah.

As stated by uh as you by you commissioners and by legal um the Norhill design guidelines have not been officially passed yet, and this met all of the other criteria that we have.

Uh and also Sam also agreed to the approval with conditions.

So uh total with the 538 square foot addition, it brings the total amount of square footage to 2,514.

Uh so staff felt that uh this was an approval.

Okay.

May I ask a follow-up, please.

As we're going through the approval criteria, um this is an exclusive list of criteria for consideration.

Uh this is the the uh our list of criteria which you also have in your packet uh from is is the is the ordinance that we have um for when we don't if we don't have design guidelines in a district, then the criteria whether it be for store for contributing or not contributing, they're they're different.

But though that is the criteria that we we utilize, yes.

Are each uh afforded equal weight?

No.

I think um I mean typically I think that often there are like multiple criteria, like if you're not in compliance, it it's gonna be multiple, it's gonna touch on different things, but it's a it's uh for this one I think it's about the the question is about the massing, basically.

And as the speakers talked about, Norhill is one of the most the the homes are much more miniature, let's put it this way.

They're they're a lot smaller in scale than all of the other heights districts.

And so um if you walk down the street, you know, it's just a different kind of vibe, just like Lemoc Valley is very different, grows differently.

So um scale here is magnified based everything is much smaller, uh generally speaking.

Okay.

So if we're dealing with a hypothetical, for example, uh if we have um uh two satisfactory and one non-satisfactory, must we provide each one equal weight uh or can we use our own discretion on what we may feel is more relevant to a neighborhood.

Uh I think the real answer is the y members of this body have the discretion to uh the members of this commission represent different uh experiences, different work um experiences, different points of view.

Um it's finding the consensus that this body is what we're trying to find.

So um uh there may be, I mean there may be a pro uh an aspect that doesn't meet a certain criteria, but for other factors, every every project is different um if members believe that it does satisfy um from their overall perspective.

Um it is the discretion of this body to you have you have you have the ability to make that judgment.

But that's what we're here for.

So I appreciate that.

That's very helpful.

I think I'm getting the the idea that maybe the questions related to I think they're really strong here, but less so here, and I'm willing to let this kind of is you're making kind of a balance.

That's not specified in the ordinance.

There's not an idea of waiting, but I think to the chair's point, it's within y'all's discretion.

If you want to state that that that's what you're doing, that's fine.

Um if not, I don't know that you need to.

Commissioner Davis.

So um, Mr.

Janukos, if the you said that the plate height that you have planned is actually lower than the plate height of the original structure.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

Yes, ma'am.

And also I want to point out that we're not coming any further forward than the existing second floor is now.

We're in line with that.

So we didn't try to encroach forward at all.

We're we're in line with everything.

So you would say the massing is the same or equal to what we're doing.

Well, we added 500 square feet.

We just balanced it out.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Sam.

How far does the house overhang?

The second floor overhang the first floor.

In in the oh uh I don't know.

Let me look.

Oh, yeah.

It might no this is this is the existing um this is what's existing now.

You can see, I don't know if that helped you.

Um I don't know.

Let me see if I can find that dimension.

Because if if I ask staff, I mean if they had presented this in the house had not overhung the first floor, this would have been a shall approved, correct?

Oh yeah, we uh we overhang in the back like four feet.

Okay.

Yeah, so we can leave route the back by four feet.

Right.

That that special is a good thing.

I wasn't asking staff if that's correct.

I believe if they didn't extend back four feet, they could expand the width and it would be a shall approved.

Right.

That's right.

That is true.

So a shall approve is in the ordinance.

And so if you do an addition that is less than 50 percent forward in the existing house, but do not leave the perimeter of the existing house, then it is automatically approved.

It doesn't come in front of the commission, in fact.

So what I was curious is what the size would be of that if it had been a shall approved versus the size of it as proposed.

This the shall approve just requires that the second story start 50 percent back and not extend outward and sides uh toward the sides or the rear.

Um we're all gonna be greatly uh uh uh benefiting from the actual uh guidelines that are approved by this, you know, recommended by this body and approved by council, so then we'd have more measures.

I believe there's a FAR that it that they're that they are proposing.

Um and they are proposing there is a preference within this their suggested guidelines to maintain rear yard space and not build to the rear property line.

So they're they're also trying to build on top of the original structure so that it's there's some open space in the back, which I guess the submission also concurs with.

So it's it's not again it's not part of our purview, but it is close to a shall approve by four feet, in my opinion.

Yeah, it's really close, yeah.

But we can leave Ronaldo the back to get that room in.

So um, and I don't have that exact dimension for you.

Yes, and that's and that's why it comes to commission.

If it if it's not a shallow approved, then it has to come to the commission to be individually discussed or considered.

Question?

Sorry, Commissioner Blake.

I'm sorry.

I just want to clarify because I was setting a bad example by asking Commissioner Cosgrove without my microphone on.

Um I asked about the height because the um proposal pre-hipped was five feet taller, the ridge height than the original.

So we've been talking about the plate height as being lower, but the ridge height is actually higher.

Um, and I assume the hipping was to reduce the impression of the height.

Is that then motive?

And then my second question is do we not care about how tall this the ridge of this house addition is?

The reason the ridge height got taller is because the addition got wider.

So in order to to get to the middle, we had to go up with it.

Now we're at a uh six and twelve pitch now.

We could drop that ridge uh to a four and twelve or five and twelve.

If you get less than a four and twelve, though, it gets hard to put mechanical equipment in that attic.

And so it gets really a you know, but uh we can drop the ridge as much as possible to still allow for mechanical mechanical equipment.

I don't have a problem with that at all.

Yeah, you're and you're correct.

Uh massing size scale of the others.

So if that's the original, yeah.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

I think four and twelve is also the minimum slope for a single roof by manufacturer recommendation.

So it it's really not recommended to be less than four and twelve.

That's right.

Four shingles.

That's right.

And it's hard to get in that attic.

Yeah.

No.

I move to accept staff's recommendation with the proviso that we ask also for the adjustment of the ridge height.

Is there a second?

Mr.

Chair, I I actually had another question I wanted to ask.

Was it okay?

Yes.

Um this question is for staff.

Has have you heard or had any com had any communication with uh any of the immediate neighbors to this home?

This is staff person Samantha Delione.

I did not receive a call.

I did not receive any emails and from when I checked yesterday, I did not see that there was any public comment on uh our website for this.

So no.

No, sir.

Is there a second?

A second.

Any other discussion?

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

Any abstention?

I can you announce your names when you say that you're second and then opposing.

So I need the who is second?

Garcia second, opposed any abstentions.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

And we'll now move on to our final item, item 16.

Good afternoon chairperson, members of the commission and the public.

This is staff person Charles Sadler.

I submit for your consideration item C16, which is 1011 La Green Street and Norhill, which is a contributing structure.

The applicant is proposing removal of four original wood one over one windows and replacement with four one over one five bricks windows and fibrics.

I'll read you what that what that is.

That's a renewal by Anderson acclaim model.

And it's composed of wood and polymer.

And and I have actually have a sample here too.

So it's a it's a matte finish.

It is uh it appears similar to wood from the street view.

And staff is recommending approval.

I don't believe there's any uh there were no public comments submitted.

And so that concludes my presentation if you have any questions.

Thank you, Chair.

I was I'll open the public hearing at this time.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Um Virginia Kelsey.

I'm Virginia Kelsey, VP of Norr Hill.

Um I just got the sample of the window.

Nor Hill is now allowing people to change windows if they want to, as long as they conform with the design and character of of the neighborhood.

We would love for everybody to keep their wood windows or alter them or replace them with wood windows, but we are trying to respond to the neighborhood.

Um our issue is this specific window.

Can you put this?

Document camera.

Um I don't know much about this material.

It sort of feels like vinyl, but it may be better.

But one of the issues with this, and we're looking at other windows, is the frame around the outside of the window is really thick.

So if you come to put the um one by four on top of it or separate it, it's got to be carefully considered because it could end up not looking like a historic window.

So we're all for them replacing the windows, but we would prefer them to replace it with a wood window or a window that would have a smaller frame so that it could be built in and appear seamless with the other windows in the house.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to speak on this item?

Um I think the one um my question for staff, I guess, is in our packet, Charles.

Um, you know, our basic requirement.

You know, I know or the ordinance that replacement is currently written if it if there's a substantial amount of windows that need to be repaired, you're allowed to replace your windows that that can't be reasonably repaired.

But if they are uh changed, uh per the ordinance, they need to look like the original windows, but they don't have to be the same material as per se.

So it's it's easier in the heights or these North Hill or other places to find windows that look like wood that may not actually be wood or 100 percent wood.

But there is a provision of being in set and recessed.

So what and I know there's a with vinyl windows today, they're almost in line with each other, and they're not the lower sash is not actually recessed as this is.

But this frame would still have to be in set per per the um I think it's inch and three-quarters of an inch, I think is what's on your website in your in the packet that commissioners have.

So if that is in set, would that not be you know covered with some jam extension before the corner board, you know, the trim board goes the trim board is less than three-quarters of an inch.

So there would be some type of you know, one-inch jam extender needed between the the trim board and the actual frame of the window in order to meet this what's curling on the screen.

And um is it possible to ensure that that jam extender and the that the corner board are covering up a portion of that frame as it would be the case with the traditional wood window question?

Yes, Chair.

Um when uh Virginia Kelsey showed that sample, that was the one of the early samples I saw with this very bulky window.

And so I would staff was skeptical, but we we actually met with one of the sales people, they brought in samples, and so we we determined that it was compatible, and then he insured us that it could be inset to meet that specific requirement.

And it could be some somewhat covered to not have a very wide appearance for the frame, which would normally be about a quarter to three-eighths of an inch.

Correct.

Yes, Chair.

And so the it's a little misleading when you s when you see a sample that's a much it's the same material of the window, but it's shrunk down.

So the when it's a full-size window, these are large full-size windows, it would be uh like these are the proportions of it.

So it's but when you see the shrunk down sample, it's deceptive.

It looks like it would not be compatible.

But the sample that you are presenting, that's the sash, and we're talking about the frame currently, right?

The discussion with from was about the frame.

Correct.

Okay.

And so we were actually basing it on uh criteria six, which says that new materials to be used for any exterior feature, excluding what is visible from public alleys, must be visual visually compatible with, but not necessarily the same as the materials being replaced in form design texture and scale.

Okay.

But a condition could be put on the approval that the frame be obscured to match an actual wood window, the appearance therefore to match the ordinance.

Yes, Chair.

Okay.

Are there any other questions of staff on this item?

Please, Commissioner Hill.

Has anybody made a determination that the existing windows are non-repairable?

Uh yes, good question.

So we have we've documented there's fo there's some photos in there, so staff visited and we determined that they were beyond repair.

So that's generally like 50 percent of the window is uh experienced water damage.

And so that's so we we did determine that.

Was that in the form of rot or was it in the form of the glazing coming off?

Uh it was uh warping, so it was the wood itself was beyond repair, like about 50 percent.

Thank you.

Sure.

Mr.

Mark Smith.

Um as I'm reading this, uh if I'm reading it right, these are just windows on the side of the house, correct?

Correct.

So visually, you wouldn't see the difference very much between the front and the slides.

Just as uh windows are uh often a repeat topic of this commission, and though, you know, I I think there will be new discussions with new members, but um there's certainly a deference to the front facade and also to the side nearest to the right-of-way, which is closer to what you see.

There is language in the ordinance we could put it up perhaps that just addresses windows, you know, that you know if the windows are beyond a certain amount of deterioration, the ordinance does allow for windows to be replaced, and then there's language about that they need to look like the window that was there originally in the period of significance.

So a lot of our current ordinance is based on contributing properties and not and not newer windows or newer properties.

And so in this regard, if if you're allowed to replace the windows, it needs to look like wood even if it's not wood.

But there's that there's clear language in the ordinance about that.

And um, and nonetheless, we still have a lot of um window discussions.

Um often we have to rely on staff or P to go out and look at the windows.

Um of our staff and Pete have experience restoring wood windows and understand what that is, and but that that's part of this conversation as well.

Any other questions or discussions?

Is there a motion?

I make a motion to approve staff recommendations.

Okay.

Um is it worth to put a condition that it's that the frame that the thicker frame would be partially obscured to mat to represent to resemble just a typical window installation inset?

Yes, yes, please.

Is there a second?

Cosgrave seconds.

Any other discussion?

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion passes.

And we'll move on to item D comments from the public.

And I have one member of the public sign up to speak, which is Paula Cabina.

Good afternoon, and thank you.

If if you'd reset your name and the microphone for the record, thank you.

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity.

I am not from the heights.

I am an Acres Homes citizen.

As a manner of introduction, I am native Houstonian, Miss Paula A.

Cobina.

I am the caregiver of a resident of the Acres Homes community who has been residing as such since 1950.

In 2022, his home suffered a fire and he had no insurance.

My comments are regarding the issue that Mr.

Patrick C.

Lamel and I have submitted paperwork regarding the rebuilding of his home at the state, city, and county levels to no avail.

It is now going on four years since the fire and over one year since a fruit tree fell on his home after Hurricane Barrel.

We would now recommend that these three levels of government work together to give Mr.

Lamel and I the help that is available to us as productive Houston citizens.

I continually receive suggestions from the same departments to submit the same paperwork to the same entities over and over with the same results and answers of disqualification of Mr.

Lama.

What more can he do to qualify if being retired, disabled, and a senior citizen is not sufficient?

Comment number two.

As a recently approved vendor for the city of Houston, I am in need of a contract to work in my field of expertise for the city of Houston.

Who do I speak with regarding a city contract which will also help with the costs of Mr.

Lamel's home repair and the work that I can offer different districts, jurisdictions, and communities of the city?

Thank you.

Thank you.

I guess Kim, I know public uh public comment is it's a one-way communication to us, but I don't know if there's a way to direct some of the comments that we've received to someone in the city.

My gut is is housing and community development, and I don't know if she's already been there.

Nodding yes.

Um but you know, yeah.

Um I'll try I can try and find a name we can get her contact info, and we can try and find a name in with with the at least housing community development lawyers and then get somebody over there.

Okay, thank you.

Um we will now move on to the historic preservation officers report.

We have one more public comment, Chair.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

One question, Robert.

When will the guidelines come before the Nor Hill guidelines?

This is Virginia Kelsey, VP of Norhill.

That's my comment.

Uh Virginia, do they are uh still a work in progress that we are working diligently to get them done this year?

Anything I can do to make them go faster, I'm your gal.

Thank you for your help.

Okay.

Anyone else in the public wants to speak?

Sam, please.

Sam, Janukas Creole Design.

I know it's a new crew here and everything, but uh your comment, Mr.

Rodrick, about the uh uh letters from the neighbor.

I'm happy to do that.

And it's it's the neighbors in the heights in my experience have been eager to give us letters.

I mean, one project we had in North Hill, we had I think it was 31 or 37 neighbors within a four-block radius that were within favor of our project.

But when we submitted those to the previous commission, it didn't really seem to sway them one way or another.

But if you believe that you want the neighbors on either side to give us a letter of approval of our project, I'm happy to go meet with those neighbors and get that approval.

Thank you.

Okay, any other members of the public like to speak.

I'll close the public hearing and move on to item E, Sort Preservation Office report.

Yasmin.

Hello, this is Yasmin Arslan, interim preservation officer.

I am sorry, between training drafts and everything that was going on.

There's no preservation officer report, but I want to speak to the public and thank them for their patience as we have been short staffed, so we might not have uh been responding as fast as we'd like to be.

We appreciate the public's um flexibility, understanding, and patience.

We will continue to do um our best.

Um we are handling preservation tracker.

That is still relatively new, I want to say, three months now.

We are working with IT um to fix a lot of the issues that are being submitted by staff and by uh the public.

Um and we we will also try and work on Norhill Design Guidelines as fast as we can.

Uh we appreciate everyone's patience and flexibility.

We we thank the previous commission for their time and volunteer and their service, and we welcome the new um commission.

And it's not bad.

435.

So that's that's not bad at all.

That's a that's a good start.

From the six years here, it's it's a good start.

So welcome and thank you all.

Thank you.

I have a really good question for Kim, however.

Um so I don't have an item on the agenda for uh comments from the HEHC.

So based on my copy.

I think that was polled.

Okay.

Yeah.

So there used to be it.

I didn't really cover this in our discussion earlier, but let me just say that a lot of times you can commit as commissioners, you'll have comments or you'll have additional questions you'll want to ask here at the meeting, right?

Or I'll say you need to ask it at the meeting if I'm asked.

Um if we know in advance what you want to talk about, let staff know, and then they can tell you when or how it can get on an agenda.

Um a lot of times they want to do some staff preparation time.

Again, the idea is the agenda is supposed to tell the public what is going to be discussed.

And if all of a sudden you guys start talking about windows, then it's not on there.

I sorry, we beat windows to death.

But um yeah, that one did take a look at the other.

I'll just say particularly when things are not posted.

So even things like the comments from the public, it's comments.

Thank you.

We'll look into it.

It's it's not a debate or discussion because again, someone out in the public may have wanted to be here to hear it.

So it, you know, especially if it's something of interest that we know to the public.

So staff will work with you to get to get information or questions on the agenda.

Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted for the record to point out there were a couple of recruisals um on some items on 320, and then a couple on the consent agenda, and we might not have logistically got that on the record, but we um the appropriate people did step out of the room at the appropriate time, and we have got uh affidavits on file uh to substantiate the same.

So that's it.

And with that, we will adjourn it.

Good meeting for your first one, y'all.