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

I'd like to begin by thanking the public for joining us, the staff for their preparation, and my fellow commissioners for their service.

I am Commission Vice Chair John Cosgrove, the Chair David Buchik is absent.

Uh, to verify that we have a quorum, I will call the role.

Commissioner Ashley Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Carl Smith.

Present.

Commissioner Chantel Blakely, I'm she's absent.

Commissioner Zion Escobar.

Present.

Commissioner David Hill.

Present.

Commissioner Sam Sidel.

The mayor.

Commissioner Mark Smith.

Present.

Commissioner Robert Browning.

Present.

Commissioner Josh Broadbeck.

Commissioner Craig Garcia.

Commissioner Becky Davis.

Present.

I'm an executive secretary.

Present.

Present.

Thank you, Commissioners.

We have a quorum.

Just a couple of housekeeping notes.

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

Meetings start about a minute 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's form before the item is called and turn it in to the staff.

Applicants may open and speak for three minutes.

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

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

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

And just a reminder to the commissioners to state their name prior to making a motion or seconding it.

And now for the director's report.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, uh, Chairman Cosgrove, Commissioners and members of the public.

Um, Robert Williamson, Acting Secretary of the Commission and Deputy Director of the Planning and Development Department.

For my report today, I only have two announcements.

First, we're working to get a motion on the October 22 City Council agenda to set a public hearing for this year's Houston landmark designations and historical district reclassifications.

Second, we're close to finalizing the long-awaited Norr Hill Design Guidelines, and we'll be scheduling a public hearing with the Norrill Historic District in November before bringing those proposed guidelines before this body for consideration.

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

And this concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I don't see Marta Cornello here, so there is no mayor's liaison report.

Uh the next item is the adoption of the minutes from the September 11th, 2025 meeting.

Did everyone have a chance to review those?

Any motions.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions.

The motion carries.

All right, moving on to item A, a public hearing in consideration of the of impossible action on a protected landmark designation application for the Greater Rose Hill Missionary Baptist Church at 3029 Holman Street.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair and members of the Commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha DeLeon.

I submit item A for your consideration at 3029 Holman Street for the protected landmark designation of the Greater Rose Hill Missionary Baptist Church.

Greater Rose Hill Missionary Baptist Church at 3029 Holman is a historic black church that houses a hundred and twenty-three-year-old congregation.

The congregation was founded in 1902 when their first pastor being Reverend Thomas Wesley.

The pastor and members of the congregation are seeking a protected landmark designation for the property in the third ward to protect and preserve the history of this significant church for generations to come.

Greater Rose Hill Missionary Baptist Church meets criteria one, three, and H for City of Houston landmark designation and criterion one for the Houston City of Houston Protected Landmark Designation.

The designation report was researched and written by Emily Ryan with Preservation Houston.

Staff recommends that the Houston Art La Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission recommend to City Council the protected landmark designation of 3029 Holman Street, Houston, Texas, 7704, known as the Greater Rose Hill Missionary Baptist Church.

Chair and members of the commission, I believe that Emily Ryan from Preservation Houston has signed up to speak on this item.

I'm also available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, I would um open the public hearing.

I do have one speaker signed up, Emily Ryan.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the commission.

My name is Emily Ryan.

As the author of this nomination and as a representative of Preservation Houston, I'm here today to speak in support of the protected landmark nomination for the Greater Rosehill Missionary Baptist Church Agenda Item A.

Over the course of its 123 year history, Greater Rosehill Missionary Baptist Church has made significant contributions to the betterment of its third ward community, maintained active engagement in the Baptist community at both local and national levels, and played an influential role in civil rights activism.

We were very fortunate to uncover the breadth of recorded history documenting the church's legacy of service through numerous articles found in both Black owned and mainstream newspapers of the time.

Notably, under the leadership of Rose Hill's second pastor, Reverend William Sykes, the church actively supported civic initiatives in the Black community.

These efforts include political organizing, regular attendance of regional and state Baptist conventions, hosting educational initiatives, supporting public health efforts, and leading community campaigns that supported spiritual well-being.

For example, in 1929, Reverend Sykes, serving as chairman of the Colored Relief Committee, was among the first to open a center for the unemployed and impoverished at the Oddfellows Temple during the depression.

The third ward contains numerous historic structures, but many still do not possess legal protections, such as landmark and protected landmark designations.

Ongoing redevelopment pressures within the third ward place these historic buildings and the African American heritage they represent at risk of being lost.

The pastor and congregation are seeking a protected landmark designation for the property in the third ward to protect and preserve this historically significant church in preservation Houston supports this nomination.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this item?

Hearing none, I will now close the public hearing.

Commissioners, any discussion, questions of the applicant.

Motions.

Rob Browning, second.

Sorry.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Carries unanimously.

Moving on to item B, consideration of impossible action on certificate of appropriateness applications for consent agenda.

Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners, and the public staff member Terrence Jackson.

Today's staff recommends the following items for action per staff recommendation in one motion.

The following items are item B.

Two, eight two four Cortland Street, alteration addition.

Houston Heights South Recommendation approval with conditions.

B5 1531 Harvard Street Alteration Edition in the Houston Heights East Historic District recommendation approval.

832 West Millwood Street.

Alteration addition in the Nor Hill Historic District.

Recommendation approval.

832 West Millwood Street.

I'm sorry, B7, 832 West Millwood Street.

Alteration to a garage in the carport in the Nor Hill Historic District.

Recommendation approval.

Item B eight 2903 Houston Ave.

New construction of a garage in the Germantown Historic District.

Uh has been deferred by the applicant.

Item B9 206 Stratford alteration of windows and siding in the Avondale East Historic District.

This is a denial of a COA and issuance of a COR.

Item B 10, 2310 Decatur Street, alteration of signage in the old six ward.

This is also a denial of a COA and issuance of a COR.

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

Items proposed for individual consideration, therefore are items B1 and B4.

We are here for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

So we've been notified that item B 10 would like to be pulled off of consent by the owner.

Okay.

And given the volume of speakers signed up for items six and seven, I think we should probably pull those off as well.

So on the consent agenda, we would have items two and three at 824 Courtland, item five at 1531 Harvard Street, and item nine at 206 Stratford Street.

That is correct.

That's correct.

So the these items will be considered together in a single motion in accordance with the staff's recommendations listed on the agenda.

If any applicant or member of the public disagrees with the recommendation for a particular item, please indicate so and that item will be considered separately.

Hearing none, then any commissioners with wish to pull any of the remaining items off.

So the items to be considered on the consent are B 235 and 9.

Would anybody like to make a motion?

Oh, before we make a motion, Chairman, can we it I don't know if I miss the information on the COR, like the specifics that are in there for the issuance?

Is that am I?

Which like I think I'm um I'm under on uh nine for Stratford.

Okay.

You you say you don't have the information?

Yeah.

Like that's that's the only thing I'm missing.

You good?

Perfect.

All right, do we have a motion to consider those items together?

Hill, I make a motion to consider two, five, and nine approved on the consent agenda.

As well as three.

As well as three, yes.

Two three okay.

It do have a second.

I'll second title.

Okay, perfect.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Opposed.

Unopposed, any abstentions.

The motion carries.

All right.

So the first item on the agenda is 1138 Fugate Street, new construction of a single family residence.

Um, Chair, I do not is there anyone here for 1138 Fugate?

I have two I have two speakers signed up for it, but just in opposition of it.

Right, but I don't see the owners if there is an opportunity if could we bump this down to the bottom of the agenda and allow the owners time to get here because you as we know it's been a contentious item.

I want to make sure that they're here.

Do we need a motion for that?

Or um no, you can just take uh move to take it out of order as the chair.

It's your discretion.

Okay, we could be the chair.

All right, thank you, sir.

Um so then the next item on the agenda would be 3412 Audubon Place.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission.

This is staff person Kara Quigley.

I submit item B4 at 3412 Audubon in Audubon Place Historic District for your consideration.

The property includes a non-contributing vacant 14,184 square foot L-shaped lot, which was replotted by the City of Houston Planning Commission on August 21st, 2025 to combine two non-contributing lots.

One portion of the property fronts Audubon Place, while the other side fronts Harold Street.

The applicant proposes to construct a new single family residence with an attached garage.

The design is a contemporary interpretation of early modern architectural styles and features inspired by contributing structures in Audubon Place Historic District.

The two-story structure will have an L-shaped footprint due to the atypical lot orientation, include a two-story glass hyphen at the rear corner to connect the main house to the garage living quarters, as well as feature an open air veranda at the rear to help link the two wings and break up the overall massing of the structure.

The proposed conditioned living space is 4,992 square feet and an additional 2,116 square feet of unconditioned covered space for a grand total of 7,109 square feet combined.

The structure itself covers approximately 43.1% of the 14,184 square foot lot.

Further details of the new construction and its comparison to contributing structures in the context area can be found on page 18 through 22 of the staff report.

The applicant has undergone three design reviews since June 2025 and has been working closely with staff to modify the proposal to be as compatible and respectful to the historic district's character as possible.

After each review, the Frankel design team considered staff's feedback and worked diligently to produce a design that was reflective of our team's comments.

Modificing modifications included reducing the overall ridge height of the main house and the garage, minimizing details such as brackets and types of sighting, as well as the implementation of the glass hyphen to help reduce visual impact of the connection from the street view.

Public comments regarding the design proposal can be found on page 23 of the report for additional information.

Staff recommends approval.

Chair and members of the commission, the designer Scott Frankel is available is available for questions as well as other members of the Frankel Design Team.

The owner, Brian Freed is also in attendance.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I will now open the public hearing.

I do have two speakers signed up, Scott Franco and Brian Freed.

Um whichever order y'all want to go in.

And if you could just state your name for the record.

Sure.

Uh hi guys, my name is Scott Frankel.

I am not one of the designers, I'm the builder.

The design team is actually here with me now.

Um commissioners and city staff.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you.

Uh our company is Frankel Design Build, a 37-year-old design build firm based here in Houston.

We are a team of architects, interior designers, builders, and craftsmen.

Uh we take great pride in our design work.

We were recently named the National Association of Home Builders Custom Builder of the Year in the United States Green Building Council's Lead for Homes program custom builder of the year.

Uh this is a lead for homes project.

Uh we have taken great care of designing this for our client, Mr.

Freed, who we have built for once before.

Mr.

Freed is excited to be a part of the community and has already met with many of his neighbors who have been vocal in supporting his new home.

We have removed two dilapidated commercial structures from the neighborhood in preparation of a single single family home.

As a group, we have worked diligently to balance all the recommendations and opinions coming from the City of Houston planners, board members, and citizen representatives.

In the last three months, we've made uh we've met five times with the Houston Historic Preservation Planning Department and their community representatives.

We've even had the privilege of presenting our design to Commissioner Chair Mr.

Buchek in two of these meetings.

And the proposed design, our contemporary take on the Craftsman's style complements the historic homes in the neighborhood without overshadowing them.

Uh this home does not try and match the era, uh the era of architecture, but rather respect it, not necessarily mimic it.

Uh we have made over 15 changes to the plan based on the city's notes.

We have made countless revisions to the plans over the course of our conversations to ensure this.

Um be it lowering roof lines, adjusting plate heights, adding glass facades, uh, reducing total materials.

Truth be told, we actually think the plan looks better.

We appreciate the feedback.

Um we reached out to the Audubon Civic Association multiple times, most recently, back in June, and did not receive any communication back from them until October 5th.

The email received back was actually about the the replat uh, but not the house itself.

The replat was approved in August.

We appreciate the plan being recommended by the city for approval.

Uh we appreciate the opportunity to add a contributing structure to this neighborhood.

We would appreciate your approval so we can add something beautiful to this neighborhood that we think is awesome and love.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

If you could just state your name for the record.

Uh mine's pretty simple.

I've lived here for about 20 years, 21 years.

I've lived in Houston, and I wanted to move closer into town.

So they built my house about 10, 11 years ago out in memorial area where I lived, and so I know they do great work.

And I I live in the I live in uh the residences at LaCollum Door right now because I wanted to kind of live in the neighborhood and figure out if I really like the neighborhood.

And it took me a little while to find a plot of land in the area that I really loved.

I love this lot, and I want to build a great house and just be continue to be a great part of the community.

So for me, it's it's really simple.

I think I think they've covered all the details.

I just wanted to, you know, know a little bit about me, but I'm I'm a Houstonian and I just want to build a great house and have a great place for my family.

All right, thank you very much.

Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this item?

Any of the commissioners have questions for the applicant or speakers.

Then at this time I'll close the public hearing and open it up for discussion.

Motion to approve uh item uh item four, 342 uh 3412 Out of On place as uh recommended by the um preservation staff.

Commissioner Davis makes the motion to approve staff's recommendation.

Is there a second?

Broadback second.

Um all in favor.

I mean, I'm just gonna abstain because I don't have enough information.

Any abstentions?

One commissioner Jones.

The motion carries the next item on the agenda item six is 832 West Melwood Street.

Can we take these together?

If you may ask staff to present them to together since they're related, you may want to vote on them separately.

I I understood that the applicant wanted one of them, the second part deferred.

Is that correct?

Or did I mishear that?

No, they're both going together.

Okay.

Okay.

So can we do present both six and seven at the same time?

And then if we need to vote separately, we'll do that.

Um I'll read my spiel for six first, and then I'll move on to the other one.

So you can perfect.

All right.

Good afternoon again, Chair and members of the commission.

This is staff person Kara Quigley.

I submit item B6 at 832 West Millwood in Norhill for your consideration.

The property includes a contributing 1,088 square foot one-story English bungalow constructed circa 1928 and a contributing detached 904 square foot two-story garage apartment constructed circa 1940, located on a 5,512 square foot interior lot.

The applicant proposes a 1,408 square foot two-story addition to the rear of the existing single-story house for a new total square footage of 2,488 square feet.

All corners of the original structure will be preserved by insetting the addition on the first floor, and the existing roof line will be maintained using a cricket before the two-story edition begins.

The existing aluminum siding will be removed to expose the original 117 wood beveled siding below.

The 117 will be maintained and repaired as needed on the historic portion of the house, while the addition will be covered in smooth cementitious siding with a five and a half inch reveal to differentiate old from new.

The existing deteriorated wood windows will be replaced with new inset and recessed wood windows to match the existing locations and profiles.

All screens are to be removed from both porch and windows to expose the original open-air wrapped front porch.

In the immediate block face of West Melwood, there are three existing two-story garage apartments, not including 832, and two residences with a two-story rear addition.

The context area included on page 16 of the staff report shows a few of these precedents to further support the proposal.

For reference, 811 West Millwood is a 2,380 square foot per HCAD compared to the current design.

The proposed addition of 832 West Melwood would bring the total square foot of the house to 2,488 square feet, which is only 108 square feet more than the existing 811s.

Public comments for the design can be found on page 27 through 28 of the staff report for additional information.

Staff recommends approval.

Chair members of the commission, the agent Sam G.

Nukas is available to speak on this item.

I'm also available for any questions.

So that's the first one.

Now the second one, same property, uh includes contributing 1,080 square foot one-story English bungalow and a contributing detached 904 square foot two-story garage apartment.

The applicant proposes alterations to the existing two-story structure for modern day use of the first floor garage space.

The details of the modernization include the following.

The new siding will be smooth cementitious with a five and a half-inch reveal to match the proposed two-story addition on the main house.

No additional condition space or square footage is proposed to the existing garage or garage apartment.

It is to remain as a detached structure and will be subordinate to the main house.

Staff recommends approval.

Chair members of the commission, the agent Sam Gianukas is available to speak on this item.

I am also available for any questions on either of these items.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do any commissioners have questions of staff at this point before I open the public hearing?

All right, so I will open the public hearing.

I have a number of speakers signed up.

I'll start with the applicant, Sam Giannucus.

Hello, Sam Janukas Creole Design.

Um this house, we worked with staff really closely to get this house to where it was uh acceptable.

Uh we're actually a couple of hundred square feet and more than some of the last four or five that I've gotten approved in the Norhill neighborhood.

We follow all of their deed restrictions.

We follow all the city code.

We worked with care to to uh to get this house at a place where where it would be approved consent agenda because I prefer consent agenda over fighting over these things.

And uh we we follow all the need restrictions.

So I don't know what else we can do.

Um and I mean that's really all I have to say.

We'll let them speak, and then I can rebut that, right?

That's correct.

All right, thank you.

The first speaker I have signed up is Virginia Kelsey.

Document camera.

Good afternoon.

I'm Virginia Kelsey.

I'm the deed restriction vice president of Norhill Neighborhood Association.

I do want to acknowledge that the existing house has not been maintained.

A substantial remodeling is welcome by all, but that does not mean that a design should be approved, which is substantially larger than that of the neighborhood.

The presentation of this project focuses on the new addition to the house, but you cannot look at the massing of the addition without considering the massing of the existing two-story garage.

The remodeled house will be 2488 square feet, but when you add in the air conditioned space of 452 square feet above the garage, what you end up with is a house with air conditioned space of 2,940 square feet or a.53 far.

And I want to show here on this plan that that goes to the massing of the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood.

You can't just ignore a very large element in the back of a house.

What makes Norrhill unique is the small scale of its massing.

It is this character which makes Norrhill historic.

All the buildings in Norhill contribute to its scale.

But the real outline of the two-story space is what I've outlined in a dark, a dark element.43.

There's no two-story garage.

And at 803 Melwood, it is on a much larger lot, and it has a far a.40.

Motion to extend Miss Kelsey an additional minute.

C Smith second.

All in favor.

And it's.40.

Neither have two story garages.

Okay.

For this design presented, in addition to its size, the first floor plate is raised to 9 feet 6 inches, which is taller than the nine foot maximum for the neighborhood and 8 foot 6 of the existing house.

Also, the second floor massing extends beyond the sides, increasing the garage substantially by two feet.

That further impacts the neighborhood.

You could have a seven-foot garage door.

Everything contributes to the scale, and there's many others in the neighborhood that have been built with smaller additions that still provide all the families and fit within the guidelines of Norhill.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Mary Emily Schultz.

Presentation mode.

Is that a question?

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

First, I want to thank you for giving your time to Could you state your name for the remote?

Well, I was coming to that.

It's Mary Emily Schultz.

I am I'm a retired and a volunteer member of the Norhill Association Board.

And also I wanted to preserve the unique historic features of neighborhood of Norhill that are constantly being threatened now by over construction by builders.

The house at 832 in Bellwood is clearly in need of renovation, but as you can see in the prints of proposed construction, the planned additions will expand the building far beyond the allowed building mass for a lot this size.

It will obstruct sunlight from the neighbor on the west and it will redirect drainage to both sides from increased roof area.

At least one large tree on the west side will need to be removed or seriously cut back.

The most important thing I want to point out is that Norhill is not just a historic neighborhood.

There are many other historic neighborhoods in the Houston region.

Norhill is a unique historic neighborhood, and what makes it unique, it's not just this or that historic 1926 bungalow.

It is that the entire neighborhood is consistent in its character as a planned community that has consistently and historically maintained the same building architecture and mass for its individual structures.

If this commission is to be true to its title as historic, it cannot permit massive overbuilding house by house.

Commissioner Jones motion to extend the speaker an additional minute.

There, a second.

Yeah, I'll second.

Thank you.

All in favor?

I.

I was curious.

It can't permit this massive overbuilding house by house that violates the deed restriction guidelines in Norhill.

Those guidelines are what help to maintain the neighborhood consistency by contribute contributing structures that make Norhill historic.

The neighborhood consist um to permit such overbuilding is to dismantle house by house the unique character of this historic neighborhood.

And I will add that in a survey conducted last year, over 70 percent of the residents who answered the survey agreed that they wanted the small bungalow consistency to continue throughout the Norhill Historic Neighborhood.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

The next speaker is Tiffany Tilly.

Hi, good afternoon.

Hi, my name is Tiffany Till.

I am here today as a concerned resident and homeowner in Norhill.

My husband and I bought our home in Norhill almost four years ago because of the uniqueness and loveliness of being part of a historical neighborhood.

It really is special.

We knew the rules of the neighborhood association before purchasing and agreed to seek guidance and abide by those rules to maintain the historical look of the neighborhood.

You can go just about any direction outside of Norhill and build any kind of home you want.

But to be part of a historical district, there are and there should be limits to what you can do to your home.

The proposal for this home today, as well as the garage, which you will be considering next, is outside of those neighborhood guidelines that are imposed to maintain the historical look that matches the neighborhood.

There are those of us who play by the rules and others who don't.

And we don't believe that the ones who don't should not be rewarded.

A number of people in Norhill have built additions to their homes that conform to those limitations.

The same could be done on this home, yet the developer is purposefully pushing the boundaries of acceptability.

Thank you very much.

The next speaker is Adam Till.

I'm a resident of Norhill, specifically North Norhill.

You just heard from my wife there.

Um especially if we consider the two together this year in Normandy and the mass of both of them.

My first real objection is question number 10 in terms of applicability, approval criteria, which is uh part of this form that's in front of you here.

And I'm I struggle to find how this is satisfactory.

We have a over a 50% increase in ridge height and an over 100%, almost 125% increase in square footage in this design.

So no rational person wants to see a house in disrepair, a dereliction.

I mean, everybody wants that house to have some love, and there's a lot of pathways forward, thoughtful, mindful design that we could do that.

I mean, there's a lot of ways to do it, and Norhill is is is eager to do that, but this uh just goes beyond the pale, I think in my in terms of what's acceptable, not only in the context area, but also in the neighborhood as a whole.

Um, I think we need to be thinking about these proposals, not just in terms of the individual home that's in front of us, and I know you do that, but I do I do want to emphasize it that we're the the historic district is not the homes themselves, it is the collection of the homes.

And so every time we take one of these outliers and put it into that, we erode what is beautiful and and unique.

Truly unique about Norhill when we do that.

Um I think if we have to consider them within the broader composition uh of Norhill, and therefore I think great care has to be taken to ensure that the designs remain respectful um and adherent uh to neighborhood character.

Each of these proposals that we see that push for bigger and bigger scale, more mass, um uh a road eventually around the historical identity and character of the neighborhood.

Um and I would dare say that you as a council uh have um as great or greater a responsibility to Commissioner Jones motion to extend an additional minute to the speaker.

There were a second.

Second all in favor?

I thank you.

Um that you have as greater responsibility, if not more so, to the neighbors to the left, to the right, foreign aft, as you do to the applicant.

Because what's left is you have those people, those people members of the neighborhood adjacent or a street over or ten streets over, those that still abide that are left with an indelible impact on their relationship with their home, their privacy, and especially their outdoor experience as well in that home.

And they they may not have any expectation that we're in here discussing changing that dramatically.

So I think it's very, very important that we try to stay within the approved guidelines with Norhill, and everyone wants to see something wonderful done with A32 Melwood, but it just can't be this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have one more speaker, Gillian Steinhauer.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jillian Steinhauer.

I moved to the Norhill neighborhood five years ago because my daughter and her husband uh live there, and now I'm round the corner from them, and I'm in a small bungalow, and I'm all by myself, so I've got plenty of room.

My daughter and her husband five years ago had a child and decided they wanted to have a larger house.

They were able to comply with all the Norhill deed restrictions and the come, you know, whatever whatever they were supposed to do, they did, and their architect and their builder followed the guidelines, and now they have recently moved back into their house.

Um, and it it just fits the neighborhood.

It has not destroyed in any way the neighborhood.

And uh, as some of the previous speakers have said, uh, it's the consistency of the bungalow style that keeps the neighborhood being the Norhill neighborhood.

It's a wonderful neighborhood, and I just think we should follow the rules and not just gradually uh incrementally increase things, and uh I think that's all I need to say.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So that's all the speakers that are signed up.

Is there anybody else in the public that would like to speak?

Then I would invite Sam to Sam Janukas Creole Design.

Um they talked about conditioned space.

We're we're at 2400 square feet on the main house.

What that is three or hundred three, three fifty less than houses I've had approved in the last few months in the same neighborhood.

The garage is detached.

So to lump the garage in with the house is really not being straight up with you guys.

Uh and they talked about allowable buildable area.

Nowhere, I have the deed restrictions right here.

Nowhere in the deed restrictions does it talk about allowable buildable area.

And and I follow the deed restrictions.

So when they say that I just came in here and just kind of willy-nilly drew something that that I wanted to draw, that's just not true.

And and they also talk about design guidelines.

There are no design guidelines.

We talked about in November we're gonna have design guidelines for the neighborhood.

But there are no design guidelines.

There are these deed restrictions, which I welcome you to read, and I follow all of these deed restrictions.

And then they talk about the neighbors.

I have a support letter from the neighbors.

Uh it's in your package.

Uh, there's two support letters for the neighbor right next door.

We had uh two or three other letters that were submitted later this earlier this morning.

When I realized that they were on the rampage to get people to sign up and come in, I started rallying to get some other people.

We had on the house at 1101 West Melwood, we had 41 people of support within a four-block radius.

And on another house at Key Street, I had 31 people of support.

If it if if me going out and getting support for this project is what it takes to get this through, I can get the support.

It's just I didn't feel I felt like the neighbor was important because I was asked that question last hearing.

I was here, so we got the neighbors to sign up and it's in your package.

But we follow all the deed restrictions.

We follow all the design guidelines, worked with Kara real hard to make sure that everything was uh uh appropriate.

The garage is detached, it's not part of the original structure.

We're not allowed to do two-story garages in Norhill.

And so they're lucky they have one because a lot of folks want a two-story garage for the office or for a mother-in-law suite or something like that.

So we're really lucky they have it.

I would suggest to Norrill, these folks that feel so strong about Norrhill, is to get their deed restrictions updated and and put all that stuff in their deed restrictions.

That's the way to fix this because the deed restrictions are gonna help.

That's all we have to go by right here.

And and and I I meet all city code, I got historicals approval, and I followed their deed restrictions.

I don't know what else, what else I can do.

And uh we submitted to the board uh to the uh uh Nor Hill board for them to uh uh review it.

It doesn't it doesn't ever work out well because they they always want to they always want to have uh they don't want any massing at all, they don't want any additional square footage.

But when people are paying $800,000 for a house or $700,000 for a house, they have to be able to add on to the house and make it large enough to raise a family.

And most of the people that are moving into that neighborhood have two or three kids, and and they want they want to be able to raise a family in the house and not be in a 1200 square foot bungalow.

And uh, but we follow all the design guidelines.

I mean, not design guides, there are none.

We follow all the deed restrictions, we follow all the city code, uh, and and we worked with care to make sure that we had a product that would would they would approve.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do any commissioners have questions of staff or the applicant?

Um Commissioner Escobar here.

I'm curious about the comments related to uh ridge height and massing.

Um so the massing is not in the deed restrictions right now.

Deed restrictions, I don't see anything about that.

You have to but there are forthcoming design guidelines that will address massing about the square footage and allowable far, yes, which goes into the overall massing.

So just as a reminder, this body can't we don't consider the deed restrictions.

I'm trying to understand the intent and then where where each intent where there's a gap in intent.

Massing is also mentioned in the ordinance as well.

Okay.

So at this time I guess I'll close the public hearing.

Oh sorry, go ahead.

Yeah, I think I can just put this out there to you or everyone else.

I mean, we've got a far of point six still, correct?

Isn't that right?

No.

What is it?

In the heights proper.

Well, there are no FAR in any other district other than the heights for which specific design guidelines have been adopted by council.

There may be some in old six ward, but this is not an old six either.

So I guess my question is are there any specific violations of that?

No, because there's nothing officially stated.

Okay.

Can we come in about when someone would have to ask the question?

So I hear um my curiosity is this particular project is happening before there are guidelines that would require us to think differently, not require us to think differently.

We we don't know that.

Right.

Right.

This is yeah, staff is working on guidelines, they've not been finalized nor presented to the commission and adopted by council.

So they have to go through a lot of steps before we know what design guidelines say.

Right.

And so in the decision to either approve this or not, um some of the feedback from other residents about how this could create a trend in the future, this would be one that would potentially go forward.

Um and then when those other processes have been completed, you wouldn't have this problem in perpetuity necessarily.

If what you're aiming for in um hyperlocally would become formalized in a way that we would recognize here in our decision making.

So making this one decision doesn't mean that there will be 50 others necessarily.

Um this is an exception, and the rule will be set in the future, in the near future.

I just want to make sure I'm not sure.

That's right.

I'm saying this because I'm sensitive to massing.

Um my community of concern is Freedmanstown, and this type of massing, the difference in roof lines has has honestly very much changed the fabric of of what historic preservation looks like in Freedmanstown, um, which is why it matters to me, and I'm inclined to say of course.

Uh but if it's not violating any rule, there is no reason legally to say no.

Right.

And so I'm I'm I just want to state for the record that it's uncomfortable and it's a fact, and therefore we have to move forward with fact, or at least my vote specifically.

Although I'm encouraged to hear that going forward, this will not be a open-ended pattern.

If is there any other feedback we could hear from the other folks, or is that do you have someone in specific?

If you ask a specific question of a speaker, then they can reapproach the podium.

Um could I hear uh some context, some response or other information that I'm not aware of from Speaker uh Virginia Kelsey?

Thank you.

Apologies for the lack of language there.

Thank you.

Um, Virginia Kelsey, umorhill.

The Norhill Neighborhood Association has been working about getting these guidelines with the city, but the city's through a number of things has been delayed.

It is perfectly legal for Norr Hill to adopt design guidelines, which they have, they've been filed by the state, and they um closely follow everything in the guidelines that is on draft that is presented for the public.

The important thing here has to do with the massing of the context area.

And what we're saying is that the garage has its massing, and it should be included in the thought process of the massing of the house.

And there is no other house in the context area that has this large massing.

Hard stop.

It's just not this large.

You may have an addition the same size as the house, and it's addition, but there's no two-story garage.

Or you have a two-story garage, but you don't have a 2400 or 2300 square foot house and another 400 square feet on a garage.

So the massing is very different.

There are not many houses like this in all of Norrhill.

They just happen to all be SAMs.

But in terms of what is and what the neighborhood wants, 77% of the people do not want this in Norhill.

And y'all are tasked to look at the context area.

And it does not meet the context area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Chair, I have a question.

Um I did I thought I'd heard that on this specific block here, there are three other two-story garages.

Is that yes?

That's correct.

So in the context area, there are other there are other two-story garages.

Yes.

Uh they are at uh 824, 821, and 812.

Um the context area page for the garage, I only included 824 and 821, but there are three.

So do any of those also have additions?

They do not.

It the additions would be with one-story garages.

If this were to go forward, it would be the only one that has both the addition and the two-story garage.

Okay.

Thank you.

Now that is also just on this immediate block face.

I did not look to the rest of the neighborhood.

Um, but as far as we've usually done, we typically look just to that immediate block face for the time being.

Okay.

Okay.

First point of clarification.

I'm a little confused by guidelines that have been sent to the state.

Um I I don't know what that is.

Those would not be our city of Houston officially guidelines.

Those would not be regulated through us specifically.

That would be something that would be regulated through Norhill as their deed restrictions might have been, as I understand it.

I I'm I'm wondering if if Ms.

Kelsey doesn't mean they were filed of record with the county.

I I don't I don't understand the file with the state either.

Our lawyers said that they were filed with the state, that that's how they have to be done.

I'm not a lawyer.

I just do what the lawyer says.

I can't I can't speak to that.

I know that bringing my I have been involved.

I'm an architect and I have been involved in writing design guidelines for other neighborhoods, and I know that they are legal documents, they've been tested and they've been filed with the state.

What that means, I don't know.

I hope that's clarification.

And I appreciate that y'all cannot go by that because you're not tasked with need restrictions.

So I understand that, but to say that the neighborhood doesn't feel passionate about it and that we don't support the smaller amount, we're allowing additions.

You know, 2400 square feet is not a small house in this neighborhood, and I'll be quiet.

Uh Browning, um when we're looking at the sizing and scale of the proposed B-7 garage.

Is the silhouette from the street going to be the same or different than it currently is?

It would be two feet higher.

The actual footprint of the garage does not change.

No more additional square footage would be added, but it would be slightly taller, yes.

Is there a reason or a necessity for that increase?

As I understand it, it would be for accessibility for modern day vehicles in that first floor.

That first floor is about seven six.

Um I'm not I don't have the number of what that door opening is.

Um so that would be my understanding.

Maybe Sam would be able to clarify those particular numbers if you have those numbers.

That would be helpful.

Okay.

Yeah.

Let's talk on that.

So the uh slab for the garage is in pretty rough shape.

So we wanted to pour a new slab underneath uh the garage.

In doing that, we were going to raise that slab up so it doesn't take on water.

That that contributes to a little bit of the height.

The other what uh was the ceilings in the garage are seven foot six, and so we wanted to get that ceiling up high enough that you could put an SUV or uh a vehicle in the garage.

And and that's that's why we raise the height of the the garage like we did.

May I ask a follow-up?

Okay.

And I appreciate that, and obviously I think we all need to be concerned with building homes, remodeling homes so they fit the times.

I guess that begs the question about the second floor, then is we're not here to redesign, and I appreciate that, but is the height of the second floor with that extra two feet over the entire structure still a necessity?

Well, the right now the plate height on the second floor is eight foot, so we're not changing the roof, we're not changing the plate height.

So the only thing we could do is maybe do a seven-foot door and on the garage door and and lower the garage itself a little bit to I want it up out of the water.

But but uh you know, we could certainly explore with uh HHC, lowering it as much as we possibly can within reason and still be able to get a car in there that's a today car, you know.

Yeah.

Yes.

So you said that the read the ridge height on the garage is not changing, is that correct?

Well, it's changing because we're raising the garage up by pouring a new slab underneath it and doing a taller garage door.

Okay, and I totally agree that if you don't have you have to have an eight-foot garage door today.

Um so then the house itself uh in comparison, this is not a big house at 2300 square feet.

So other additions in the neighborhood that are going that of 23 or 2400 square feet are going to have the same massing on their sick on for their second level in the future.

So in the future on this block, we're going to have anybody who extends, is it's going to look similar.

We can't you can't squish it down.

Is that correct?

The the difference is the heat restrictions do not allow you to build a two-story garage.

And so, because of that, if you have a one-story garage, you're stuck with that one-story garage.

So this particular house happens to have a two-story garage back there, and the owner wants to uh utilize that garage.

I'll give you a really good example.

824 Courtland that we just passed on uh that has design guidelines in the heights.

Uh we had a garage on that house that was like 750 square feet.

Well, the owner, we maxed the house out to like 2900 square feet on the main house.

And the owner, I said, Well, we can't do that because the garage has 700 square feet in it.

So we cut off, we literally cut off uh 200 square feet of that existing garage in order to bring it into compliance.

So the heights design guidelines have helped us, and I think helped the staff as well to try to define some of the things like exposing the corners, recessing in and going back and not go and keeping the ridges lower.

I mean, it's a long way to answer your question, but it it we might be able to bring that garage down a little bit in height, but it it's not excessively high.

And even if you didn't touch the garage, you're still going to be seeing that massing as you look down the driveway because our addition is behind the house.

And so it doesn't change the view down the driveway.

And and we have support letters from both neighbors, so yeah.

So for reference, as far as the ridge heights go, um, the proposed ridge height, the absolute tallest on the main house would be 276, and then I believe the rear portion of it is about 26.

Um, and then the garage is currently at 21 feet, and it would go to 2310.

So still a little bit less.

That sounds like that to makes total sense.

And I wouldn't want to prevent the owners of this house from being able to expand their house the way that they want to, because they happen to have a two-car, uh, a two-story garage.

Um, which I admit it is gold in Norhill to have a two-story, a two-story garage.

Um, but I think we have to be sympathetic to the people who own this home to allow them to expand the house to live in it the way they want to live in it.

Do I hear any any motions or still in discussion or asking questions?

If you have a question, please.

Sure.

Yes.

Question for Ms.

Kelsey.

Is Commissioner Broadbeck?

Um a moment ago it was asserted by the applicant that quote, they don't want any massing, they don't want any additional square footage, end quote.

In reference to the NNA.

Is that true?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do you want to know what our feeling is?

Go ahead.

We believe that people need to add on to their houses and they're gonna have kids and families.

One thing, Becky, that you were saying is 23, 2400 square feet is not that large.

It is for Norhill.

The average house, I think is 1,200 or 1,300 square feet.

So people are doubling their houses, and we have been very careful about what we allow.

So on this lot, it could be 2400 square feet.

You can easily fit four bedrooms in, it can be a nice square footage.

The the um woman who spoke, they have a two-story garage, they added on to the second house.

The total square footage is 2200, including the garage space over the second floor of the garage.

That's how we've always counted square feet.

It goes to massing, it's the massing of the neighborhood.

And we welcome families, and having space is important, and we allow it.

Sorry, Ms.

Kelsey, would you mind coming back?

I've got a question for you.

You're getting your steps in there.

Well, I like to walk.

This strikes me as a very unique existing property in Norhill.

And I know the neighborhood well.

No.

Okay.

With the two-story garage, you I mean, there are there are quite a few.

And it, but people haven't, it's just like I was saying, there aren't usually two-story houses with two-story garages.

That is unique.

When they have been done, they've been respectful to the overall massing of the house.

That's not the case here.

Is it is it the civic association's position if you were here to speak for it?

I am.

That the concern or the statement that a foot is being added to the foundation for flooding purposes, uh, protect your vehicles during rain events, which is a real concern for all of us in Houston.

Is something standing alone that would cause the civic association concern, consternation, and objection to the plan?

I was here or sent a support letter and worked very closely with a woman in the neighborhood that had a two-story garage.

They did not add, you know, with the quarters above.

We worked with them, met with the builder, and worked very closely about trying to get it tall enough to have a garage door.

They did raise the the because they were having flooding and the usual problems, and we worked with them.

And the house elevated about 10 inches or something, maybe 12 inches.

We allow these things.

So that's not the point.

The point is the collective massing in the block.

We're not disrespectful about what it takes to get it done.

A seven, you can fit any kind of car in a seven-foot garage door.

I appreciate that.

I probably asked an artful question.

If the only issue was the one foot elevation caused by the foundation for the express purpose of preventing flooding, would the civic association object to B7, the garage?

The garage, no.

The house cumulatively, the house is too large with the garage remaining.

So that's you know, we don't have a problem with them raising the garage by a foot, say, but whatever, 10 inches, whatever it takes.

In their documentation, they said it was eight feet.

I think you said it was seven foot six, but the drawings that they submitted to us were eight feet, which we they just sent us about eleven o'clock this morning.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions while I'm here?

I can do a little dance.

I think I'll at this point close the public hearing and allow us to deliberate or entertain any motions.

And remember, we can take the items separately.

Uh Commissioner Broadbeck.

Um as one of the laymen on the commission, I guess the barometer that I try to use is after it's built, when you walk past it on the street, is it going to violate or disrupt the look and the feel and the spirit of that district?

That's the barometer that I try to use.

Um with respect to two-story additions on the rear of bungalows.

Um what I can say is that I'm convinced, having lived in Houston now for six, seven years, that it is possible to put a two-story addition on the rear of a home without violating the look and the feel and the spirit of that district, as long as it's far enough back in the lot, and as long as the footprint of the two-story edition doesn't consume the rest of the structure.

And when I look at this two-story edition, the footprint of this two-story edition is considerably larger than the one-story remaining portion of the house.

And so, in my opinion, that's going to consume the rest of the structure, which would therefore be a violation of the look and the feel and the spirit of the Norhill district.

So that's my take.

Anyone motions?

Davis, I uh move to not sure about the wording here.

Approve the staff's recommendation for approval uh for this item.

Is that for both B six and seven?

Yes.

Okay.

So there is a motion to approve staff recommendation for items B six and seven.

Is there a second?

I will second.

Sidal.

And all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Opposed.

Opposed.

Opposed.

Can we do a show of hands or a roll call vote, please?

Because it appears to be split.

Roll call.

Just raise hands and see if we can.

I want to make sure that we get the record correct here.

So in favor.

Three opposed.

Do you have it?

Five.

The opposed to the motion does not carry.

Another motion?

I'll make a second motion to start with B six for approval.

Commissioner Jones will second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Can we do the show of hands?

This is B six for the main structure.

For the addition.

That's correct.

Correct.

And all opposed.

So that motion carries.

And for B7.

I'll make a motion for B7 and to approve.

I'll second.

For approval.

Saddle.

All in favor.

So three in favor, all opposed.

So that motion does not carry.

Do we have an alternative motion on the this item is still live?

Yeah.

So do we have an alternative motion?

For B7.

I think what we're looking at is the massing, overall massing, correct?

So do you you explore that?

Do you have a motion?

As this is my second meeting, I'm really not sure how to do that without making recommendations for renovation.

So if somebody if somebody can either provide some guidance without without me going off the rails here, it would be appreciated.

Yes, question.

Okay, so the garage is smaller than the addition, correct?

And we just approved the addition, and the garage is smaller.

So I'm trying to find the logic and why that's not acceptable.

Ginger.

I just want to comment that I also agree with what you're saying, and that the two-story garage, while slightly unique, is a contributing structure.

So it is part of the original um designation of the property, right?

So it's to me the addition on the home is a bigger change than the garage because that two-story garage is contributing.

So it seems that the change to the home is a much greater change than the garage as proposed.

That's my opinion.

So we have a motion that failed for the acceptance of the garage.

Is there another motion or uh stafferson Gary Quigley?

Um there was a mention just now that if part of the issue is the height if there was an appetite for lowering it.

Um heard that mention in the discussion.

So if that was part of the condition.

Yeah, you you could entertain a motion to approve with conditions that they lower it however many feet you think would help make it more compatible with the neighborhood.

Browning, that that doesn't step outside the guard grails for what we're supposed to be doing here by making suggestions.

You can make conditions that are related to the related to and reasonable with within the scope of it.

I always ask that you consider them carefully because they then have to be enforced by staff both at HPO and um permitting.

So they need to be easily identifiable.

Um you know, a general of oh yeah, lower it until it looks better is not going to do that.

It's building plans, give me feet or something that then staff can look at permitting can look at.

So please try well I'm going uh Browning.

I will go out on a limb and if I go too far, somebody please slap my wrist.

I will make a motion to conditionally approve B seven, provided the roof line is lowered one foot.

Is there a second?

My question is does that work?

Yes, yeah, he can that that's a reasonable, that's totally reasonable.

Yes.

Yeah, that I think that's a measurable, reasonable.

I I don't know if you're not redesigning the applicant once redesigning.

And the applicant is okay with that change.

So it would go from 2310 to 2210.

Can we confirm um with Mrs.

Kelsey that's not a little bit more?

No, no.

Not at this time.

Okay.

So I have a motion to lower the height of the garage one foot.

Is there a second to that motion?

I'll actually go ahead and second that.

Second, all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

So the motion carries.

All right, so the next item on the agenda is item 10, 2310 decatur streets, an alteration of for signage.

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

This is staff person Charles Sadler.

I submit for your consideration item B 10 at 2310 Decatur Street in the old six ward historic district.

This is a non-contributing one-story commercial property.

The applicant has already installed a wall-mounted sign on the west elevation to the left of restaurant entrance without a COA.

The sign measures two feet.

I'm sorry, three feet two inches at its tallest and four feet four inches at its widest.

And is set back from the street about 60 feet.

Sign is illuminated by 12 volt white LEDs.

The old six ward design guidelines on page 17, section D1E, stipulate that if a sign is illuminated, it must it can only be externally illuminated from an external light source.

So staff recommends denial of COA and issuance of a COR for approval of sign as installed with the condition that the sign not be internally illuminated.

Chair and members of the commission, I believe there's a speaker or two signed up available for any questions.

Thank you.

I do have uh one speaker signed up.

Shaya Sur Pete.

Oh, hello, my name is Shaya Atari.

Um the owner of RER signs, the design company who uh design and manufacture the sign.

Uh document camera, please.

We design and manufacture the sign and install it because the sign is so small and is not uh legible from the main street, and by the city uh city code, you're not required to submit for uh a sign permit if the sign is not visible from the main road.

Uh we went and submit for uh a poll sign, uh a monument sign for the same project, which actually got approved by the city of Houston, but then when the city inspector went to the site, they saw that little sign next to the door, and they said, Oh, you need to get that one approved so we can release upper wall of this sign.

And in order to get that approval, I said, okay, we have to get approval from the historic.

And when we did, I said, okay, now your sign cannot be internally illuminated.

And to our understanding, internally illuminated signs is like a cabinet sign, frontlet channel letter, that the body and the face of the sign is illuminated.

The way we design these sign, I don't know if we can send a picture or show a picture.

Is uh the sign the entire uh anything that you see pink is metal, so it's not illuminated.

Only the letters are illuminated.

And again, and if we can also show a picture that how a small that sign is and is not even visible from uh from the from the street, and this is the only sign this business has.

Thank you.

I have a question, uh, Commissioner Escobar.

So can you remind me is that other physical stand of this sign?

This is the sign that's going to go on the road, but um just uh that was for the back story how we got to this.

Right, but that one still will go forward.

That's we are in the process of working forward, yes.

And with the illumination in this one, if you were to just not illuminate it and leave it, what does the concept?

That would be fine because the sign is uh it's been actually fabricated.

Right.

And when we when we submit it to the city, we also have the letters that uh for uh for the free standing sign, uh we are not required to get a historic approval.

That's what the city told us.

And uh, but again, the sign has been approved.

The reason we are here because they said you need to get that approval.

I can speak to that too.

Okay.

So there's a little bit of confusion.

So the uh freestanding signs in a historic district do not need historic approval.

Except an old six ward, uh, freestanding signs are that are illuminated are not allowed.

Like freestanding signs are not are generally not allowed.

Like what would be allowed would be like you'd see for a law office, it'd be a piece of wood hanging with two wrought iron.

That's what's and it's I think the I think it's a a six foot square sign, I think is the maximum when it's freestanding.

So it's this anomaly that uh it's allowed in every other district, but not an old six ward, this type of a of a sign.

So that one will be approved though?

This one, this one will not be approved.

So both the freestanding sign and the illuminated sign on the building are both not going to be approved.

We're not worried about it.

We're not worried about the free standing sign, right?

Um I'm asking because I've been by that business.

I stumbled upon it, and I was like, where the heck's the sign?

And so I'm curious, as a business owner, right?

Practical, if neither will be approved, right?

What's the solution?

And do you just put a different light on it, a spotlight, and it's not a terminal illuminated.

We submitted these permits around February.

And uh, if he can show the location of the sign, and um and these guys, they're not just my client, they're they're my friends, they have multiple uh restaurants and restaurant business, they already are struggling big time.

And they went through the the restaurant week, I mean not the restaurant month, I don't know what they call it, yeah.

And with no sign, knowing we submit this in February.

And they are struggling.

They don't have and their building is sitting really far from the street, and the whole point of, and this is actually replacing the existing sign.

And the existing was 12 feet sign, we design a 12-foot sign that is the entire sign is not illuminated, only the letters are illuminated.

And uh so they can get some visibility from Washington.

Uh because you're driving by, you just see a house, you don't even see that business.

Uh so if they don't get approved, I don't know.

That's the question for for him.

I don't know what he wants to do.

Um I do have another speaker that's repeat.

Would you like to address the commission?

Um, yeah, I mean, uh to answer your question, I don't know what the other solution is.

Um, because the one that's on the building is not even visible from um from the road.

It's basically just uh it's a way marker, right?

If someone's looking for the restaurant, they're gonna eventually see it on the building and know that it's the restaurant.

Um our biggest uh signage or our biggest wayfinder is gonna be this one, but we're not even talking about this, we're talking about the one on the building, and right now it's the only thing we've got.

Um, and at night time, um there's no there's not a lot of street lights or anything like that.

Um, our building is the only thing that's really lighting anything on that road on Decatur.

Um, and so um if we don't have it lit, um it's really hard to find that uh that restaurant.

Um even on the back side, we we installed lights that are um in our parking, and uh they bug the hell out of our neighbors, so we had to you know dim those down and stuff like that.

I mean, we do everything that the neighborhood are or the neighbors are asking to make sure that you know they're living peacefully and that uh you know we have a business that we can run uh it you know effectively.

But is the issue it's primarily that it's internally illuminated.

So I'm asking about alternatives to internal illumination and whether one could put some kind of classic spotlight or something.

It would be it will be a spotlight.

Yeah right, so that's allowed.

Okay, that's good to know.

Okay, thank y'all.

That it's not really interesting.

Yeah, I mean, that's I mean, I already said it's like because illuminated would be front of China Leder cabinet sign, just like the one you see the everywhere, like the marquee sign that the entire cabinet is illuminated.

The sign, it's not illuminated, like the body of the sign is not illuminated, only the letters are illuminated.

And and I know we're not talking about this, but I want to show you guys because um, let me let me show you this.

Because like even uh this is the auto sign that's it's been actually fabricated, and the entire body of the sign is metal and it's painted, and the only thing the only thing that's illuminated is the line of the of the letters.

So and also if you can show and these was all the existing signs, like this was the uh the restaurant that was before this that was there for a couple years, that's the signage that uh that they had.

And ours is not any different.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions for staff or for the oh I'm sorry, you want to go?

Uh this is Commissioner Browning for the staff.

You referred to what is and isn't permitted within the old sixth ward.

Are you referring to the old six ward through sign guidelines?

Yes, yes, sir.

Okay.

Back to presentation.

And we have them actually uh some of those pulled up.

Fantastic.

And uh just going back, I mean, as a lawyer, words matter.

And um it discusses that the following provides a guideline to types of signs that would be considered appropriate, not signs that shall be considered appropriate.

Can you help me with the verbiage, perhaps the intent of the guidelines?

Because it's it as it reads, it strikes me as a guideline versus an obligation.

So Mattha, could you pull a deferred?

I'm gonna say those are written way before I think anyone's time here in the room.

When that was 2007.

Yeah, so we were none of us, I think, at the table were the authors.

I don't know if if um Mr.

Williamson has any comments from a staff perspective, but it the words say what they say.

Yeah.

Yeah, I don't think we we can opine on intent from from way back when so we just have to take the words at face value today.

So I would think that um uh Commissioner Browning, I would agree with kind of your interpretation.

So there is a like I agree there is some ambiguity overall with signage in the old six ward.

But but there's a specific page, uh Samantha, if you have that, where it says monument signs are not allowed, like right here.

I have glasses for a reason.

I can't read that.

Like I'm right behind you.

That's kind of okay.

And this is in the guidelines as well.

But we're not currently discussing monument signs, right?

Correct.

We would the focus of this is just the just the application, which is the sign mounted by the door.

So Commissioner Davis.

Davis.

Okay, so um we can't talk about the intent, but we can point out that these guidelines were written in 2007, which the technology um has even since 2014 has doubled in its capability.

But I think what is actually as important.

Can you put up the map of the district?

Sure.

That's toward the beginning of the report.

Thank you, Sam.

Okay, so um, and I drove by this one too.

And this is on the very edge of the district.

It faces a park um out in the district.

So it is on a non-contributing building.

And uh so it's not degrading the historic character of a historic building.

If we were talking about the Henderson Kane General Store, which was built in 1935, which is in the middle of the district, it would be a totally different conversation.

But this is on the edge of the district facing out, the light will not impact any residents, as far as I can tell.

Um that uh and this sign is even partially obstructed by the by a post for the porch.

So it's even harder to see.

Um what we can't, we don't have anything to say.

The city is the one who will tell them what they could put that would be external to this.

But I have to think that that would be that an external light would be more intrusive than this with higher lumens and reflective light being reflected from it, as opposed to this, which is a very, very modest sign.

I mean, according to the guidelines, the sign could be 25 feet.

Now I know that you could put it, I don't know where you would put a 25-foot sign, but this is a pretty modest sign.

Edge of the district, facing a park, appropriate to the building itself, and not damaging the historic anything historic in the old six ward.

Do I hear a motion?

Staff member Terrence Jackson here.

Um I just want to address it's the 25 square feet, 25 feet and 25 square feet, huge difference.

But um, I just want to correct you on that.

I also want to say that um you guys are totally it's it's totally up to you guys if you would like to approve this.

We're just following the design guidelines.

Um so our recommendation is strictly based on those design guidelines that were written in 2007-2008.

Um so um I just wanted to put that out there that if you guys see a issue with the recommendation of it being externally lit, then you can definitely change it back to being internally lit as the applicants wish, and we have no issue with that whatsoever.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Davis, I move that we again that we approve the sign as presented in the COA.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed motion carries unanimously back to one.

All right.

The next item is item one eleven thirty-eight fugate.

I hope you guys are ready to have fun.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the HAC.

This is Staff Person Terrence Jackson, and today I submit to you item B1 at 1138 West View Gate.

The property previously included a contributing 1,216 square foot one-story wood frame home, Bill Circa 1920 with a detached garage situated on a 5,000 foot square 5,000 square foot corner lot.

The original structure no longer remains, and the only thing existing is a foundation for the new construction construction.

The applicant is proposing to construct construct a full two-story home to be constructed with a 1,495 square foot first floor and a 1,365 square foot second floor, bringing a livable square foot, total livable square footage to 2,860 square feet.

They're proposing to construct a 520 square foot garage, which is not included in this application but shown for reference.

They will also like to include a ridge height of 29 feet and two inches with a 20-foot seven-inch top plate height on on the second floor.

The first floor top plate will be nine foot, and the second floor top plate will be eight foot.

I'm sorry, let me redo that.

Include a ridge height of 29 feet two inches with a 20-foot seven-inch Eve height.

The first floor top plate will be nine foot, and the second floor top plate will be eight feet.

They will construct the addition with in set and recess windows.

The home be will be clad with smooth cementation siding and include a 15 feet by seven inch by nine feet by 10 inch rear porch.

It's to be constructed with a four-foot rear setback at the garage, a 13-foot setback at studio study wood, and a four-foot setback.

And a uh and a five-foot setback from the home.

The side setback from the neighboring property line.

They will construct a home with the four over 12 and a 6 over 12 roof pitch with the 1910.

Um the EPI is 1910, and I said 20 foot seven.

Please ignore that.

The 20 foot seven.

Staff would like to address comments made by the applicant's legal representation, which you will see at the end of the report.

Um how we will address those comments is staff relies on the ordinance to develop recommendations for product for the project submitted to us.

The applicant has repeatedly relied on the heist design guidelines, which are not applicable, applicable to the Norrill neighborhood.

While we welcome the fact that the applicant is usually utilizing the heist design guidelines, staff cannot apply those guidelines to other neighborhoods such as the heights.

I mean outside the heights.

Staff recommends denial for the proposed new construction as it does not meet the criteria for new construction in the historic district.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much.

At this time, I will open the public hearing.

And I just did want to say that there's been a lot of discussion and previous action on this property, but as a reminder, today's discussion we should focus on the new construction application that's presented to us and make a determination whether it complies with the preservation ordinance.

So I don't have an applicant signed up to speak.

So the uh agent, Emiliano.

Sesswata is available for any questions.

Okay.

Would he like to address the commission first?

He would like to speak, actually.

No.

Please step forward and state your name.

Hi, my name is Emiliano Sasueta and the designer for this property.

Uh we've been working with Darius back and forth.

Um, same as homeowners who want to build uh uh close to 2900 square feet.

Um we're following the the guidelines, and I know there's this massing and block face uh for the the comparison though that we can do something or we can accomplish what the owner wants.

Um the only houses that I'm being approved over 2400 uh are uh the uh uh one story bungalow they have an addition on it so we can compare with uh new construction.

There just uh a very few new construction in in the in this neighborhood.

Thank you.

Anybody have questions for the speaker.

The next speaker is Virginia Kelsey.

And to keep things moving along, I think we'll just stick with the prescribed amount of time, not extended.

Um Will Hogg, who developed River Oaks, also developed Nor um Virginia Kelsey deed restrictions.

Um also developed Norr Hill in the 20s and document camera, please.

And around a park and two Esplanades to reinforce the prominence of these green spaces, he did allow two-story houses, are called four squares at the corners of these spaces.

And this is the character of what Norr Hill is all about.

This is what we're talking about.

It's all one-story bungalows, except for a few rare exceptions.

So this is the character of Norr Hill.

Where are these rare exceptions?

Here are the rare exceptions.

And what you see is they are along Nor Hill Boulevard, which runs um north to south.

There's a few there, and the others around the park, and there's one random one.

So the idea of having a two-story house up to the front setback is not anything in the neighborhood of Norr Hill.

There are no two-story homes in the context area.

The house at 1102 Few Gate does have a large two-story garage, but it was never approved by Norhill or HAHC.

It was built during a period where there was a loophole, which the city closed.

This project has been before y'all many times.

After the house collapsed, there was a design presented to us that largely conformed with the past design.

We accepted it with just a few little modifications.

Then last month, you know, one was presented to you all, and my impression of what Shaw's comments were was that you encourage the owner to go back to the earlier versions and to do something in keeping, but of our time that would work with Norr Hill.

This design does not do that.

It is 2860 square feet with a far a point five seven.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Brian Wilson.

Hi, my name is Brian Wilson.

I'm the I'm sorry, I grabbed the presentation mode, please.

Brian Wilson, I'm the immediate next door neighbor to the house at 1138 Fugate.

Um I wanted to I would like to say that I fully supported the plan submitted on the original plan submitted on June 12th, which we've referenced and you've seen before for a 2250 square foot home with detached garage based on the previously approved alteration.

Um on June 4th, during the remodeling, the original home collapsed.

In my opinion, the collapse was avoidable.

Um I do not support the proposed new 2860 square foot home construction for several reasons, these three.

First is the massing.

We've talked meant much of the discussion in the meeting today has been about massing.

Uh this design is much larger than any project approved by Norhill uh with a floor area ratio of 0.57 for this fairly small or average 5,000 square foot lot.

Um the Houston Heights design guidelines sh have a limit of 0.46 by comparison, and the proposed NNA design guidelines have a limit of 0.45.

So this greatly bigger than that.

Um secondly, the appearance, relative size, and design on this block and the adjacent 1,100 blocks of the two streets north and south.

Only one other house, which Virginia just mentioned, 1102 Fugate has comparable dimensions, and that project was never approved by HHC or by Norhill.

Um so no home in this three-block area has a second story with a wall that comes all the way to the front, like this one is proposed.

Um the last point is I feel like allowing this would reward the owner for a mistake.

The collapse of this home was avoidable.

Um, allowing new construction that doesn't closely replicate the previously approved the June 12th design sets a precedent that allows owners and contractors to sidestep the historic office or preservation regulations on demolition of historic buildings.

Um I respectfully ask that you deny the application for the proposed new construction at 1138 Feugate and require the owner's rebuild within the approved design of the home.

Limit any addition to that which has already been approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Adam Till.

Uh hello, uh Adam Till again, um, North North Hill resident as well.

Um, and uh I am in opposition to this proposal as it stands before you today.

Um it is in my uh opinion that the proposed design is in no way compatible with the context area in terms of scale, size, and design spirit, um, specifically the four square slab-sided design that's in front of you today.

Um, particularly that.

This is a perfect example of what I think is nefarious creep of what we're seeing uh of size and scale or massing to use the hot term of today.

Um it's being attempted in our neighborhood, and the t I think, in my opinion, the attempt is to overwhelm the defenses to kind of flood this area with these prospects and these proposals so that there's just this gradual wearing down of the opposition to it.

And this flood of proposals from the developers and real estate opportunists to convince you that bigger equals renewal, okay, that that more size means we've revitalizing an area or doing something like that.

I think that's that's very dangerous.

My last point to make, um, and I think it's an important one is it's prominent siding on Studa Wood at View Gate.

Okay.

This is if you look at a map of Norhill, this is the the extreme western boundary of Norhill, a lot of traffic up and down this road.

It sits center mass in Norhill on Studa Wood.

This would be an example home for a lot of people that are transiting the area.

Maybe they've never been around that area.

Maybe they're house hunting, maybe they're looking for these homes.

This could be a house that they would see, and they go, well, what's particularly unique about this?

What's historic about this neighborhood?

This is a giant four-square right here on the corner that's grossly oversized for the area, and again, dominating.

We've got a 29-foot ridge height here on this design, which is I mean is massive when you look at it.

Um all of those things together, and I just would urge you that um we have to stay on a ground, we have to draw a line for the integrity of the historic nature of the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the last speaker I have signed up is Mary Emily Schultz.

Greetings again.

I'm my name is Mary Emily Schultz, and I'm speaking right now on behalf of Dwayne Bradley and Catherine White Swan, who are residents of Norhill.

They've uh submitted a letter for the record.

It says we have been Norhill residents and homeowners since 2000.

We live in a small cottage on Pine Ridge.

We are very disturbed by the proposal to allow the demolition request for the property at the corner of Studiwood and Fugate, 1138 Fugate.

We do not think allowing this oversized rebuild should be allowed in our historic neighborhood.

It is inappropriate in the extreme.

It is tantamount in our position in our opinion to the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.

We do not want our neighborhood to go the way of others as we have seen around us.

Please do not allow this to happen.

Thank you.

I have another letter, this one from Karen Stokes and her husband, Eve Delph uh Delphine in the Heights in Norhill.

As with the um she says the size, scale, and design of this property dispute the harmony and scale of the neighborhood.

The design was has not been presented to the Norhill Association, circumventing the permission required for our deed by our deed restrictions.

Our neighborhood is about operating in good faith to retain harmony while allowing reasonable in renovations.

Um this has not happened here.

NNA approved the design model of this house prior to the demolition of the original house.

Post-demolition, new design has was submitted directly to the city by passing neighborhood restrictions with major changes in scale.

The resubmission of a new design, one that dramatically increases in scale scope, post-demolition, post-demolition in the original historic bungalow and original design is concerning.

That aside, the new design simply does not fit into the historic Norhill.

Literally, it is simply too big.

Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this issue?

And with the applicant since there was opposition to the application, the applicant is entitled to a rebuttal.

Doesn't wish to speak, sir.

Okay.

Perfect.

Any commissioner that have questions for staff?

Yeah, um I think it's before my time.

So do you does staff have any um I guess exterior elevation representation from what was previously approved?

Yes, sir.

For the soldiers, so the on these pages that you will see the top is what was existing, and the bottom is what's proposed highlighted in green.

So that's the front elevation.

The rear elevation.

And this is the side elevation that would have been facing Studa Wood.

Okay.

What what's the total score footage on that?

They're not going to be able to do that.

So complete footage on that was 2,308.

And we're at 2900?

Yes, sir.

I don't know who to talk to here, but I I'm I'm I am in need of some understanding on how we went from this to what's currently on the table.

And I'm not real sure who to ask that of.

I think that's a question for the applicant.

For the applicant.

I think the generating event was the basically demolition of the existing house collapse of the previous house that's no longer part of that.

No longer in existence on that understanding that block.

So I think the question is for the applicant.

Okay.

Question for the applicant.

So the the uh the homeowner wants uh Emiliano Sasuetta and the designer.

And the the homeowner wants to uh I didn't recover for what he he already is bent.

So he he wanted to now that is uh uh blank page, he wants to start over with something more according to what he really wants.

Uh I mean a tony in the from the beginning he wanted to to have a bigger house.

Now now he sees an opportunity to to make it to to make it that size.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I mean, I need discussion.

I'd like to make a motion, Commissioner Escobar.

I'd like to make a motion to uh to deny to accept the current recommendation.

Thank you.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

The motion carries unanimously.

I think can I go on the record for to abstain?

I just I don't have yes.

You can refrain from voting if you feel you don't have enough information.

I know this was discussed at length at last.

Right.

And I had a was not here, so I don't I would like to abstain.

I I'd hate to say that I don't encourage that, except in specific situations like where you were absent from the previous discussion because I don't want everybody saying, oh, this is a hard decision, I don't want to vote.

I understand that, at least.

And that's why I'm struggling.

So it's not making a landslide that direction.

All right.

So the motion carries with one abstention.

Presentation mo, please.

Moving on to item C comments from the public.

I don't have anybody signed up.

Of course I have comments.

Um what I'd like to talk about uh briefly is just a situation that's happening is that um developers, owners are choosing to bypass neighborhood associations, particularly us.

They are submitting to y'all HAHC.

Once you have gotten approval, they go and get a building permit.

They will, in essence, perjure themselves because you are required to sign a um provision that says that you um are honoring or abiding by the deed restrictions, the deed restrictions for our neighborhood state that you must get approval of the neighborhood.

Point blank.

It isn't about the guidelines, it's the guidelines are the the it's required to get approval.

So if you're going to get approval or follow the the deed restrictions, you have to get approval.

And that leaves us with few options.

And I don't know how to rectify it.

I have gone to City Council and I've said what used to be maybe 15 or 20 years ago, I will admit it's a long time ago, was that you would have to um get a letter from a neighborhood associations.

It's impossible for the city to enforce all the deed restrictions.

There's too many neighborhoods, there's too many rules, it's too complicated.

But you could have an approval letter go in with the application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments from the public?

Sam, Janukas Creole Design.

Great idea if they follow their deed restrictions, but they don't follow their deed restrictions.

Norrill does not follow their deed restrictions.

They have a small group of people that have put these so-called design guidelines in place and tell people that call them that that's what the rule is, and it's not the rule.

The reason I don't submit uh uh to those guys and in a you know right when I submit to historical because I like to work it out with historical to make sure that we've got everything proper.

When I did 1101 West Melwood, and we got it approved here, the house is about 2700 square foot edition.

The minute we got it approved, Virginia Kelsey and FIBO looked at my client and said, We're gonna sue you.

And that's when I decided I was not going to submit to them anymore because somebody trying to raise four kids in a house should not be threatened with a lawsuit, and they did.

My client was in the hall out here bawling like a little baby because they threatened her with a lawsuit.

I don't think you should do business that way.

If they want to sit down and try to figure out how to do business, I'm happy to do that.

I work with the staff all the time.

I'm adjusting things constantly, but you don't threaten people with a lawsuit and uh when you don't get your way, and that's really what goes on here.

If they want to change our deed restrictions, great.

If they want to put design guidelines in place, great.

I I follow the design guidelines in the Houston Heights all the time.

I I submit more to you guys than anybody else in town on a regular basis.

And I think I have four houses in Norhill right now that are coming to you in the next couple of months.

So I'm gonna be in the same spot saying, look, I'm following the deed restrictions, and they're gonna be up there going, but he doesn't follow the design guidelines.

Well, there are no design guidelines.

So that's all just bull.

And it makes me mad to threaten a client with that they're gonna sue them.

It makes it just not appropriate.

May I comment?

Yes.

But this is not a forum to air grievances between parties.

If you have something related to our commission, it's fine.

Well, I'm Adam Till, Norhill.

To say that there are no design guidelines is just not true, and he's perfectly aware of them.

There are design guidelines used by the deed restrictions committee, which is empowered by the board to make decisions about what is approved or not approved in terms of design.

So Kelsey was uh Virginia was exactly correct.

It needs approval from the board of Norhill for the plan to go together.

The Board of Norhill uses the adopted design guidelines to do that.

He knows that he doesn't like them, so he chooses just to not to adhere to them.

That's all I have to say.

All right, thank you.

I think we're gonna close the comments from the public and move on to the historic preservation officers report.

Um staff member Terrence Jackson.

Um I have the preservations officer report.

I'm not the preservation officer, by the way.

Um trying to figure out how to follow that.

No, but um so um we're making so with historic preservation tracker.

Um we are making steady progress with the historic preservation tracker.

Um we are tackling the bugs and submitting tickets so that we can get these bugs fixed that the owners, I mean that the uh owners and applicants are having to deal with.

Um we are hopeful that uh the huge bug fixes, the things that we really want to focus on.

We we're hoping that there are implemented soon.

As far as landmarks, um, we have nine items going to city council for this month, um, five protected landmarks, two landmarks, and two changes of designation.

Um for the Lions Avenue grant pro uh we that we have received for fifth award.

Um Stantec, the company awarded that was awarded the grant for this project, has completed their draft for the Lions Avenue Historic District request request for determination and eligibility and research design for the National Register of Historic Places nomination.

That was a mouthful.

Um staff needs to review this document.

Uh once it's reviewed and approved, the document will be submitted to the Texas Historical Commission.

Um after that, staff and Stantec will host another public meeting in fifth ward, which is to be determined.

Um for the Norhill Design Guidelines, hot topic.

The team is currently making final edits to the draft guideline to the design guideline draft.

We are planning for a public meeting for the guidelines on November 12th.

It is scheduled to be at Monty Beach.

Thank you.

Thank you guys.

And that concludes our meeting, and we are adjourned.