Good afternoon.

It is now 238, Thursday, December 11th, 2025.

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

I am Commission Chair David Buchek.

To verify we have a quorum, I will call the roll.

The Chair is present.

Commissioner Jones.

Do not see.

Commissioner Carl Smith.

Present.

Present.

We've we've been moving seats, so I'm looking the wrong direction.

Commissioner Hill.

Present.

Commissioner Cosgrove.

Present.

Commissioner Seidel.

Present.

I believe Commissioner Mark Smith is absent.

Oh, you're here.

Okay, good.

So Browning.

Present.

And Commissioner Broadbeck is uh departing at plane and is going to try to join the meeting.

So he he will be joining us.

Commissioner Garcia.

Present.

Commissioner Davis.

Present.

And also our Deputy Robert Williamson.

Present.

Thank you.

Commissioners, we have a quorum.

I'll just briefly read the speaker rules.

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

Meeting start a few minutes 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 before the item is called and turn it in to the staff near the front door.

Commission members, please hold your questions for staff until our we've uh heard from the public, and then we can consider all the information that we have, both from the public and staff.

And with that, um I will turn this over for the uh director's report.

Thank you, Chair.

And good afternoon, Commissioners and the General Public.

I'm Robert Williamson, Acting Secretary of the Commission and Deputy Director of the Houston Planning and Development Department.

For my report today, I just have a few announcements.

They'll be joining us today.

Um second, this year's Houston landmark designations and historic district ratifications public hearing that was scheduled for December 3rd before City Council had to be rescheduled.

So we're in the process of getting on the January 7th agenda calendar, and the required public notice will be provided to perform confirm that date.

Once we receive the public comments at that meeting, council will then vote on the individual submissions of the next meeting.

Second, the public hearing for the Nor Hill Historic District to present the final draft of the Norr Hill Design Guidelines was held on November 12th.

And we're in the process of reviewing comments and making any final revisions before those guidelines are presented to this commission for consideration in January.

Finally, staff has completed a new internal policy regarding window replacement.

Specifically, vinyl windows are not an appropriate replacement window in our historic districts as they do not maintain the historic appearance and architectural authenticity of properties designated as historic.

A link to that policy has been posted on the department's website titled Internal Policies.

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

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I do not believe we have a mayor's liaison report today, and so I will move on next to the consideration of the November 6th 2025 HAHC meetings.

Meeting minutes.

Is there any corrections, Commissioner Cosgrove?

There's one correction that the chair's report was given by David Buch.

Any other corrections on the minutes and if if not, is there a motion to accept the minutes?

So moved.

Cosgrove motions.

Is there a second?

Hill seconds.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstin any abstentions?

Motion passes.

We'll now move on to item A.

Consideration of and possible action on referral to Texas Historical Commission for nomination to the National Registry of Historic Places for Commerce Street Warehouse, Houston, excuse me.

Commerce Street Warehouse Historic District, Houston, Harris County, Texas, roughly, bounded by Crawford on the northwest Ruiz Street on the Northeast, the rear property lines along Chenivert Street on the southeast and Franklin Street on the Southwest.

Good afternoon, Chairperson and members of the Commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha DeLeon.

I submit item A for the consideration and possible action on referral to the Texas Historical Commission for the nomination to the Register of N the National Register of Historic Places for the Commerce Street Warehouse Historic District.

The Commerce Street Warehouse Historic District is located on the northeast side of downtown Houston between the South Bank of Buffalo Bayou and the former location of Houston's Union Station and Rail Yards.

The early 20th century discovery of oil and the expansion of the Port of Houston supported the growth of Houston's economy as well as the broader development of the warehouse and industrial district.

The Commerce Street Warehouse Historic District is nominated to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A and the area of commerce for its important role in the commercial and industrial development and expansion of Houston through the mid to late 20th century.

The rare intact historic buildings that make up the historic district serve as the last remaining concentration of the once numerous warehouses and manufacturing facilities and related businesses that historically lined the south side of Buffalo Bayou.

The historic district is also nominated to the National Register under Criterion C in the area of architecture for its intact collection of early to mid 20th century brick commercial and industrial buildings, representing the evolution of industrial architecture and the influence of popular styles.

Prominent architects designed the buildings in the district include Albert Zimmerman, Alfred Finn, J.

W.

Northup Jr., and Maurice Sullivan.

The period of significance begins in 1910 with the construction of the earliest intact resource and ends in 1975, in recognition of the district's continuing commercial and industrial use through the 50-year point.

Staff recommends that the HAEC refer the nomination of the Commerce Street Warehouse Historic District to the DHC for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Samantha.

I am going to open up the public hearing just for a moment to see if there's anyone it's in the audience to speak on this item.

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

Is this a vote that or just this is just information for the Commission to understand that they are recommending that a National Registry District be created, which is outside of obviously the Houston historic district.

But this is this is a federal designation with the COVID.

Correct this is not for a city of Houston Historic District.

This is just simply for the National Register.

This is very similar to landmarks that we've brought before you guys for the for referral to the Texas Historical Commission for nomination.

The only difference is that this is a district instead of a singular property.

Okay.

But we're not really voting to refer this, or we're just it's just more of information for us to know and add any comments.

But uh in the past, I believe we have done a vote where uh we you guys essentially approve for you know this to go to the National Register, or at least telling the THC that you guys approve of this nomination.

Samantha can I say good afternoon.

So because we are CLG, they let us know and make us aware of what's going on.

There are no local restrictions.

I I do not believe a vote is needed.

This is an acknowledgement of this happening in our city and whether you support it or not.

But I I do not believe that the vote is needed.

Okay.

Any comments from Commission members?

Um I personally support the this occurring.

I also want to disclose that I rent a space in one of these historic buildings as my off for my office.

So that if that matters.

But they they are um some very interesting buildings.

Uh they there's a range of period uh different periods of it.

In around 2004, when the baseball park was built, because before that there were just series of um rail uh rail lines running through the street, and it was just basically true train cars just sitting all over the street, and you'd have to kind of weave around the car, train cars to get to even to be if you were in a in a car, for instance.

So it's um but it's also one of the earliest uh residential districts in our city when the first city was first formed.

This was the very early 1830s.

This was a place that was um many the initial Eustonians lived in this neighborhood.

It came became this kind of uh industrial um zone around 1880 to 1900 for many of these buildings and so forth.

Okay, well thank you, Samantha.

We will move on to the next agenda.

Thank you.

So Terrence, with that we will move on to item B.

This is for the consideration and possible action on the following applications for certificates of appropriateness.

Um or more items may be taken in a motion as consent items, and we'll begin with the consent items.

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 recommendations in one motion.

I present items B to 1218 Courtland Street, an alteration addition in the Houston Heights Historic District, recommendation approval with conditions.

Item B eight, nine zero seven Franklin Street, alteration of a sign, awning and/or canopy in the main street market square.

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

Item B9, 2611 Hopkins Street, alteration of windows in the Avondale West Historic District, approval with conditions.

Item B11, 2007 Kane Street, alteration of a porch or balcony in the old sixth ward historic district, recommendation approval.

Item B 12, 7718 Glen Bray Street, alteration windows in the Glenbrook Valley Historic District approval with conditions.

And item B 13, 3605 Del Monte Drive, alteration of windows in it's a landmark of the Smith Anderson House, recommendation approval.

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

Items proposed for individual consideration, therefore are item B1, B three, B four, B five, B six, B7, and B 10.

We are available for any questions.

Thank you, Terrence.

So I will just state the item numbers for the proposed consent at this time, which is item number two, number eight, number nine, number 11, 12, and 13.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, Commission members, are there any uh pro of other projects that you would like or any any of any of these projects you'd like to pull for individual discussions and consideration?

List B2.

Okay.

And Browning request to pull B 12.

Okay.

B eight.

Okay.

Any other request from Commission?

Okay, at this time I'm gonna open the public hearing and just mention if anyone is signed up to speak or is here to speak on one of these items and you um differ with the recommendation from staff, please announce yourself and what what project that would involve?

Okay, and we we have pulled that.

It's been pulled.

Everyone have that signed up to speak on an item is for a different item than the consent item.

So um so what Terrence, what I have is that we have three items on consent, items nine, eleven, and thirteen.

Yes, sir, that's correct.

Hold on.

Okay, but that's yeah.

Okay, but that's so is there a motion to accept staff's recommendation for the proposed consent agenda and for the proposed uh staff recommendations for items nine, eleven, and thirteen.

So moved.

Consider motions.

Is there second?

Second, or Sam.

Garcia seconds.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

That motion passes.

And we will now move on to items for individual consideration.

And I do want to make a note that the chair um will I will excuse myself for item number five, three four five eight inwood drive.

I'm the architect for the project, so um at that time um uh uh the vice chair will take control of the meeting.

Terrence, please proceed.

All right, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the HHC.

This is Staff Person Terrence Jackson, and today I submit to you item B1 at 2411 River Oaks Boulevard.

The property includes the historic 8,426 square foot single residence, single-family residence house that is situated on a 2300 771 square foot interior lot.

The modern Ernest L.

Schultz John B.

Conley Jr.

House was built in 1959 by Houston architect Ernest L.

Schultz as an as his own resident.

The house was designated as a city landmark in 2011.

The applicant is proposing to renovate and remodel the existing the remodel the existing and non-original portions of the structure.

The remodel consists of a 625 square foot logia at the first floor, a 1,615 square foot of second floor addition, and 468 square foot of second floor balcony.

The existing square footage of the structure is actually 9,668 square foot due to the pro due to the pool house, and the proposed total will be 11,283 square feet.

The applicant proposes to remove and replace existing and non-original windows, remove and replace non-original front door with an appropriate door, remove and replace the four-panel door at the kitchen, and the replacement door will be taller than the door will be taller than the existing.

Demolish the existing non-original columns and construct a covered logia and balcony at the north facade.

Install new doors at the on the proposed second floor balcony.

Construct a second story addition at the pool house, construct construct a second story addition over the existing garage, matching the existing parapet height.

Demolish the one car and two car garage doors and replace them with three individual garage doors.

Construct the second story addition over the existing pool house, remove the existing non-original awnings, and demolish uh existing non-original skylights.

Staff recommends approval for the proposed alteration addition.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Terrence.

At this time I open the public hearing.

Um I don't have anyone sign up on this item, but if anyone is here in the audience to speak on this item, could you please announce yourself?

If there's anyone here to speak on item one.

So not seeing anyone, I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Um commission members, are there any questions of staff uh about this this application?

Terrence, can you repeat your uh recommendation for uh approval?

Staff recommends approval for the proposed addition alteration.

Is there a motion to accept staff's recommendation motion from C Smith to accept staff recommendation?

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Hill seconds.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The motion passes.

We'll move on to item two.

Okay, that was easy.

Uh good afternoon, Chair, members of the HAC.

This is once again Terrence Jackson.

Uh I submit to you item B2 at 1218 Cortland Street.

The control a T contributing style L Plan Queen Anne residence constructed in circa 1910, located in the Houston Heights East Historic District.

The property includes a historic 1,367 square foot one-story wood frame single family residence at the and a detached garage situated on a 6600 square foot interior lot.

The applicant is proposing an alteration addition.

Staff recommends approval with conditions.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Terrence.

Can I always kind of say one more thing?

So just for context and future and reference, this project is here in front of us again because it was an approved COA back in July 2023, I believe, and because COAs are only valid for two years, they're bringing the same exact project back for uh recommendation.

Thank you, Terrence.

Um I don't have anyone signed up to speak at this time, but I opened the public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on item two 1218 Court and Street in the audience?

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

Um also gonna recognize Commissioner Broadbeck is is a joint is joined the meeting.

Commission members, are there any questions of staff on this application?

I had a comment.

Um okay, now that I know that it was already approved um two years ago, I feel that probably this is not an important issue, but I was just going to ask about um criterion eight that the additions or alterations must be done in a manner that if removed would leave unimpaired the essential form and integrity of the building.

Um and also I'm just observing that quite a bit of roofing material seems to be taken away from the original part uh by the addition.

So can you comment on those two aspects of the project?

Uh yes.

So um uh yes, so um as far as the roofing, and I may need to ref reference your other comment, but as far as the roofing is concerned, um a lot of the uh what you see if you go to page 12.

Um a lot of that is going to be uh non-original addition, um, which you may see also on the photos.

I'm sorry, I'm not an Apple guy.

Don't convince don't condemn me for that.

Yeah, so a little bit of the if you go to page six of twenty-one, you will see that a non-original edition is being demolished.

So that will be the majority of the roofing material that will be uh that will actually be affected.

There does appear to be a shed roof on the existing contributing structure, um, which is in the rear, and staff didn't necessarily feel that that would be an issue, especially being that it's in the rear and it's hidden behind the existing ridge height.

Um so we that's I'll speak to that.

As far as uh criterion number eight, um again, it's kind of like kind of the same thing.

Staff felt that since this was um non-original addition, that it was fine for that to be demolished.

Um we do feel that with the indentation that they provided on the left side of the home, um, that it does uh pay homage to the original structure and that they do not encroach upon the original structure enough to uh have an effect.

But going back to criterion eight, we do believe that if removed, it could be it could, you know, still be a uh you can still recognize it as a contributing home.

Hope that answered your question.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Mr.

Sidel.

What's the reason for wanting to differentiate the two gable scallop siding?

Uh so that's a criteria in the heights design guidelines, and this is a project in the heights that there is a slight different there is a differentiation in the addition and the um and the pro in the proposed addition.

Uh I mean and the contributing uh structure.

Um staff originally was asking that they just you know provide a siding like they did at the rear, but after meeting with uh after having a design review with uh commissioners, um we decided if they just slightly differentiated the difference of the scallops that that would be fine.

Any other questions of staff?

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

I make a motion to accept the staff recommendation on 1218 Courtland.

Okay.

I've got it, Commissioner Hill.

Uh motion side L second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion passes.

We'll move on to item three.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, member.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission.

Um staff member Yasmin Arslan.

I submit for your um I'm sorry, I have the wrong script.

Okay.

I submit for your consideration item B3 at the uh 505 Tchorn Street, lot 15 block 24.

The property includes a historic 1,269 square foot one-story wood frame single family residence situated on a 6,365 square foot interior lot.

It is a contributing craftsman residence constructed circa 1915, located in the high Woodland Heights Historic District.

The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,692 square foot two-story addition, adding 698 square feet to the first floor and 1,994 square feet to the second with an attached two-story garage.

The max ridge height of the addition will be 31 feet and 10 inches, and the eve height will be 23 feet and six inches.

The applicant proposes the following to the existing house.

Excuse me.

Replaced front porch existing wood steps with brick.

Replace existing non-original front door with appropriate new front door, no change in size or opening.

Replace existing wood columns with new wood square columns.

Existing wood siding is to remain.

The applicant is proposing the following to the addition that it be clad in artisan five and a half inch reveal, fibrousmooth cementitious hardy siding.

The addition will have a 7 over 12 pitch that matches the existing roof.

It will have a 10-foot ceiling height on the first level addition and a ceiling height of nine for the second level edition.

Staff is recommending approval with conditions that the second floor front wall is pushed two feet to the back.

Staff has received one letter of opposition, see attachment A, and um also received a letter of opposition from the Woodland Woodland Heights uh civic association that was submitted today, so after the deadline, and therefore it was not posted into um on drafts, but it was submitted into public records.

Staff is available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Yasmin.

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

I do have one speaker signed up for this item, and that's Sam Ginocus.

Sam, if you could restate your name in the microphone for the record.

Uh hello, Sam Janukas Creo Design.

Um this uh we worked real hard with Yasmin to get this uh uh hopefully on the consent agenda, and uh we met actually this past Monday and ended up pushing the second floor back another two feet in order to get it in in compliance.

I have some photos of other houses or or drawings of other houses that we've done within a three-block radius of this particular house that are very similar in design, and I just want to show those to you guys.

Um that's okay.

Document camera, please.

This is the house at um this is a house in 525 woodland that was passed by the commission.

This is a house at 525 Woodland that was passed by the commission.

Um it uh it is approximately it is 3651 square feet.

Here's a house that was passed by the commission uh two months ago, I think it was maybe three.

It's 4193 square feet.

Here's another house at 309 Baylin that was passed on consent agenda, uh, and it's 4,022 square feet.

This is a house directly next door, and it's 3,090 square feet.

This was a custom house for the end user, and so that's the square footage they wanted.

They didn't want any more than that, so I drew it custom for them.

And then this is the house that we're proposing today.

It's 3931.

So if you lay all those together, it's hard to find the one that's that's in question today.

And I just feel like worked real hard with Yasmin uh as as early as last Monday to get this on on the consent.

We didn't make that, but hopefully we'll get y'all's uh vote.

Okay, thank you, Sam.

Any questions for the speaker?

Thank you.

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

Yes, so please announce yourself.

Yes.

Sam, there is a question.

Commissioner Commissioner Blake has a question.

So I just want to ask a clarification question based on the drawings that we have.

So on uh page 17 shows us the plans.

And page 18 shows us a roof plan.

Um a little bit alarmed by how the the new part sort of encroaches on the existing, but um I think the plan there's a discrepancy between the plan which shows that the new part is almost taking over half of the roof.

Uh and the elevations and the roof plan show that it's been pulled back.

So there's more like a third of the existing roof, which is which is the actual current.

Uh we're actually 70 percent back on the uh from the front wall of the original house currently.

Okay, with the two foot that I need to the drawings I think you have, is that right that they're not go ahead.

Yeah, I'm sorry, because we met late last week, late late this not late, but kind of late to the process.

Um I guess I I uploaded most of the drawings and put them, but I think I missed one, so that is that that is probably my mistake.

He revised the drawings.

Um, and the only one missing we thought, like we still want to push it two feet to the back.

So the the why it doesn't match is is my fault.

So I apologize.

I'll make sure it's right on the action report.

But um, if you want to verify and show that on the so she she looks at the right floor plan.

Yeah, I mean which which sheet are you looking at page 17?

Oh, I don't have that.

I have the I have my plans.

Site plan.

Um could we put it up here?

What is it?

Seven is that the one you're looking at right there?

That one seems to be consistent with what you've just proposed, but the previous page?

Uh on that page, the the roof is the previous page.

You see where those condensing units are on the left-hand side, how that bumps out right there?

Uh you see where the two AC units are on the left-hand side there?

We straighten that wall out and eliminated that bump out right there.

Do you have the site plan to show that?

Yeah, that's I think that's the only one I have.

Yeah, maybe I do have to see here.

Yeah, it now looks like document camera, please.

Four right here, Sam.

Yeah, it's right there.

We bubbled it.

Okay.

That whole space that's bubbled was pushed back two feet and is is pulled in also.

So, Sam, the not the entire line was pushed back two feet, just the part on the left side that was but forward.

Correct.

Is that no?

The entire front was pushed back two feet as well as that left side pulled in about a foot and a half.

Okay, I think I think discrepancy was in the site plan that was in the report.

It that it's actually it's not a it's not a straight line.

It's further forward, but it's also it's kind of stair stepping.

Yeah, that's another that's an older plan, I believe.

That's what you're saying.

You see how the straight line is here?

Yes.

And it's straight there now.

There's no longer that bump out here.

And at one time early on, there was a bump out here because we were trying to use that front.

I think that's that's part of the question.

And so my question then for Yasmeen is does this drawing on the document screen reflect your proposed recommendation of being two feet back?

Question.

As long as it's pushed back one more foot, right?

So the condition is that he still needs to push it two feet.

Okay.

So that encroachment on the original house will be two feet smaller.

I mean, not what we're looking at.

The one we're looking at.

Yes.

So what he sent was what was he did change drawings, but he didn't change it to where we want it to be, and that is why there is a condition.

Everything should be updated but the site plan.

I apologize for that.

That's why I hate last-minute things.

So it will look like what we see, but it just be pushed back two feet.

Yes, that is the condition, which he said he agrees with.

Okay.

So on page 20 of our packet.

Which shows the second floor plan.

Presentation mode, please.

Is that accurate or is that before a further adjustment?

That's that was pushed back one foot, okay.

And we're going to push back an additional foot.

Okay.

Because we had agreed to two feet, but we were in such a rush to get it back to Yasmin.

My guy did one foot, and when she looked at it, she said, You said I said two.

I said, you're right, I apologize, and we'll push it back.

And so yes, it's gonna be it's gonna be pushed back from that point.

That's why that's mobile.

Yeah.

Any other question, Commissioner Hill?

I have a question on page 15.

On the existing house, there appears to be a window at the back that's being eliminated on the side of the house on the top drawing, the furthest to the right, and it's being eliminated.

Is that an original window?

Uh no, we're not eliminating any original windows.

I don't I'm not aware of it.

We we never do that.

So no, we would not eliminate original window.

So it's the window in the upper drawing, the upper other existing Yeah, I don't I don't understand I don't understand why that window is not there, to be honest with you.

Um Sam, your position is that window should be shown in the existing should also be shown in the proposed.

Yeah, I mean it uh we don't ever remove windows on the original house.

We know better that.

So maybe my guy missed it.

So that window is gonna remain?

Yes.

Perhaps that could be a condition to the existing conditions.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, yes.

At the risk of making a premature motion, I think I'd like to make a motion that we defer this to uh next month's agenda just so that we can be sure that we have a complete and correct doc set.

It makes me nervous to think that that uh the commission might vote on something that has an incomplete and incorrect document set.

So that's my motion.

We defer.

Um with all due respect, I want an up or down vote.

Sure.

Well, I um I need a second, but I I would ask you as mean this question.

They're may I explain?

Sure.

Okay.

So everything is accurate but the site plan.

But the that's the only one that I haven't replaced.

And again, I apologize for that.

But everything else is accurate.

Um so we can add a commission if they wish can add a condition to retain um that window.

And so the process is once they they fix the drawings, send it for us for approval, and then when they go to permitting for project docs, we go in and stamp the drawings and make sure it that we take our time stamping the drawings to make sure um that they match the condition that um HAHC has made.

Um, I understand.

But the there's still a subtle adjustment to be to be made.

It's just a it's just a it's just a small amount moving back on the drawings that you all are going to verify happens to your satisfaction.

So yes, that's so as far as um I know typically we need to see drawings that are revised to reflect what we're seeing.

Um but we have we have a policy of if it's moving something back a few feet that we can define the feed as a condition um and that has been an accepted and the my understanding is that the appeals board also accepts that that type of condition.

Um the approach for staff is if we can put a condition on it, we will.

And then if it's three conditions and more, then that then that's a lot.

It's it's more like uh re redesign.

And and so staff felt that with that condition and maybe the condition about the window, it can work.

But up to up to the commission, of course.

Okay, so I have a motion to defer.

I need I need a second to continue that conversation.

Or um if I don't have a motion, then I'll have to get another motion.

So I would just add to the motion.

Uh or at least to the issues that are on the table that there is another window that seems to be replaced.

I don't know if this was mentioned before shown on page 14.

Those are non-original.

So in addition to the ambiguity about the position of the front wall, we have the indication of the intention to eliminate one existing window and replace another one, and then just verbal indications to the contrary.

So if we are going to move to accept staff recommendations, we should at least all three of those issues.

So with all due respect, Sam, I think you forgot because in the project description, we we do have that there is a removal of two windows, and typically this commission um does allow uh removal of windows when they are towards the rear in the end 50 percent to make the whatever design work.

So typically we have allowed um that and and Cherry, you can you've been here.

It's that's what is kind of typically allowed.

There's flexibility in the rear half of the house.

Yeah, certainly the rear 25 percent or being 75 percent back.

But the windows in question, um I think Sam, you mentioned they're not original question.

I I don't believe they are original, but uh uh otherwise I wouldn't have messed with them.

Um but but I I would have to go check.

I don't have a photo of that yet.

I have a comment.

Uh I drove.

Commissioner Hill.

Uh I drove by, and to me, the window on the right side on page was it 12?

No.

14.

On page 15 looks original.

The three pair the three windows on page 14 do not appear to be original to me.

Okay.

And staff has does recommend that it is okay with those three being uh modified.

So I have a motion to defer.

I do not have a second.

Um I have to have a second in order to continue the motion to defer.

If there's not, so I need I need a call for it.

Is there a motion to defer?

Second.

I I would argue for accepting staff's recommendation with the proviso respecting these three issues rather than um prolong the process in this case.

Yeah.

Uh I'm I'm uh finding myself in the same position.

I just want to ensure that on plan review, we were in here last month with a situation where something was reviewed for compliance and it moved through, if you remember, Sam.

So I I just want to be certain that when we're reviewing these things before they move along, that we're we're verifying the accuracy of plans as to not be back in here on something that was previously approved.

So m may I explain?

So staff does make mistakes, and but staff tries to learn from their mistakes.

And so we don't want to be here again with what happened last month.

So um we are taking our time, stamping drawings, verifying, and even calling the applicants to ask about minor notes.

So um yes, so we're we're we're we we try to do that, and yes, we're we're gonna make sure that they all match.

Okay, so I don't have a second for the for the deferment.

For fanning.

Well, I don't have a motion yet.

So I don't I don't have a second.

So is is that a motion?

I move to accept staff's recommendation with the proviso that uh staff verifies that the window that is original, if if it is original, I guess kept.

Um that the front wall moves back two feet as promised.

Can I ask a quick question as can you go to page 2010?

The the the stairwell, the measurements, I it's hard for me to read it on the iPad, but it's like 13 feet seven inches.

It's four foot.

No, no, the the width of the stairwell from the from the that is like thirteen feet, and you're gonna take that back to another foot.

I would have to take it back right now.

It's four foot between uh uh staircase to staircase, it's four foot.

It was five, and then we were hastily trying to get it back to this week, and it was supposed to go to three, but uh in doing it we didn't make it.

So yes, that's so the total width of the stairwell will reduce from the 13-7 or whatever.

I can't to 12 seven.

I just wanted to make sure we had a measurable standard on the plan so that it will be 12 feet seven inches, not to maybe eliminate any confusion.

So perhaps uh Commissioner Black, you could state that dimension in the condition.

That moving the moving the wall back two feet will the outcome will be for that first mass to be 12 foot seven.

Right.

It within the condition that way there's no uh misunderstanding about what the outcome is going to be.

Okay, so I started No, you just have to add that one.

We're just adding a plus sign and you're gonna be able to do that.

Adding to the motion that as a consequence of the movement of the wall, the uh toward the back of the house, the stereo well new dimension will be 12 foot seven.

Thank you.

And then Commissioner Davis, do you uh do you agree with the amended uh motion and you are at the second?

Any other discussion?

All in favor of the amended motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

All of uh any any abstentions?

Abstain.

Okay, so motion passes.

We will move on to item four good afternoon, staff member Yasmin Arslan.

I submit for your consideration.

Item B4, um, which is 519 Bayland Avenue, lot twelve.

The property includes a historic one thousand six hundred twenty-seven square foot, one-story wood famil wood frame single family residence, and a one-story, one twenty-eight square feet garage with a carport at the rear, situated on a 7,500 interior lot.

It is a contributing Queen Ann residence constructed circa 1900 in the Woodland Heights Historic District.

The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,012 story addition, adding 281 to the first floor and 1,839 to the second, with an attached 755 two-story garage.

The max ridge height of the addition will be 28 feet one inches and the eve height 22 feet and four inches.

The applicant proposes the following to the existing house.

Replace existing wood columns with 16-inch brick um and eight-inch round wood columns.

Existing four-inch reveal wood siding to remain.

The applicant is proposing to demolish the one-story garage and carport at the rear of the lot and construct a two-story garage that um that will be 28 feet, 9 and 3 quarters of an inch from the front porch.

It will have a um 4 feet separation from the existing structure on the east side.

The garage will be 22 feet wide, and the ceiling height will be uh 10 feet.

The applicant proposes the following for the addition that it be clad in five-inch, uh 5.5 in trivial um fiber smooth cementitious hardy siding.

The addition will have a uh 5 over 12 pitch for the roof.

It will have um 10 feet and 4 inches ceiling height on the first level edition and a ceiling height of 9 for the second level addition.

Staff recommends denial as it does not satisfy criteria for 10 and 11.

Staff has received five letters of support and one letter of opposition from the Woodland Heights of uh Civic Association that was submitted into the record.

And um the applicant is here to um ask to show new design for the commission if they can consider um a different recommendation.

But again, the redesign happened late, and that is why it is submitted.

It's um towards the end of the report, but um the staff didn't feel that they had enough time to review it, and and so um it is a denial for this design submitted as is shown on the staff report.

Thank you.

I'm available for questions.

Thank you, Yesme at this time I will open the public hearing.

I do have one person uh sign up to speak for this item, which is Sam Gianukis.

Could you please uh restate your name for the record?

Uh Sam Janukas Creole Design.

Um this particular house is at 519 Bayland, is a fantastic old house that uh the bulk of the addition that we're doing is hidden behind the existing roof.

And I have I have uh some 3D renderings of kind of reflecting.

Document camera, please.

And so we uh the the problem with this house or the the the issue that uh staff had with the house was the garage being too far forward, and it was further forward before our meeting last week or last on Monday.

And so I sat down with the S meeting and I said, okay, how far back do you want this house this garage to go?

So we pushed the garage back five feet total, but you can see from that 3D rendering, you don't even notice the addition at the back of the house.

Um and so I thought it was a real other than other than the fact it's a a w uh uh the garage is on the right hand side, which there's many of those in the heights.

I have one at uh on on the 400 block uh that we did that has a dormer as we're proposing, as well as the garages on the side.

Um this house is not overly large for what's been built on the next in the neighborhood.

The um hold on a sec, I've got to hear um the house at uh 215 Balin, which I did was is uh 5600 square feet.

The house at 205 Balin is 6317.

The house at 404 uh Balin was 3485.

The house, oh I gave it away.

I give it to you.

The house that was just approved at 309 Balin.

Um a second was 4,022 square feet.

And I mean, I have here's one that was approved on Beauchamp, which is a few blocks away, it's 3193.

Um so the the the square footage of the size of the house isn't wasn't the issue, it was the how far forward the garage was, and we pushed the garage back uh five feet to make it not so uh dominant to the face.

We also um if you look at the drawing that you have, it on the on the garage we had a gable up there with a bunch of decorative uh stuff in the gable.

We eliminated that and went with a hip roof to make the garage even go away even more, and we also dropped the ceiling heights behind the house on the second level from uh from nine foot to eight foot, so that we could further hide the roof line.

Um and so it uh worked real hard with the as many and as meet worked real hard too uh to get this to to in compliance with with the design guidelines or within within the historic Mr.

Here's Okay, thank you, Sam.

Are there any questions of the speaker?

Mr.

Davis.

How far back was the garage before you decided to move it back?

It was 60.

Work for memory is it was 60 63 percent back, I believe.

It was behind behind the 50 percent mark.

You know, the so it's a little bit of a struggle we're trying to go through right now.

Is where where is that mark where you can pull and pull uh pull stuff forward and back?

For instance, on Bochamp, we did a a screen porch that was within the 50 percent mark.

And but what I've been told through my experience from doing this for so long is as long as you're past the 50 percent mark on the house, you're okay.

But we they want it back as far as possible, of course.

On this particular uh house, the owner has a uh he wanted a three-car garage because he has a uh a car that he needs to keep there, and he has the we have the outdoor kitchen hidden behind that garage.

So we pushed it back as far as we could possibly push it back, and I don't remember the percentage right now.

Um let me see if I have it on here.

Yeah, we're it's a hundred-foot lot, and um I don't have that percentage on here, but uh oh we're 55 feet one and three quarter inches from the property line to the front of the garage that was before you moved it back, or is that that's after we moved it back?

Okay, well, the ordinance doesn't require there's no specific percentage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, there's not a specific percentage in the ordinance for how far back for these buildings.

It just so um and what it then goes to is compatibility.

Um and I think you weren't showing up for this house, but you showed same context area, you showed a bunch of houses that have the side garage.

So from a compatibility standpoint, it seems that it makes the cut whether you move it back or not.

But my other comment was I know we need to be compatible, but compatible doesn't have to be unattractive.

And what you proposed that was eliminated at least gave a little bit of character to that building.

So that's my question is why do we have to make everything vanilla?

We're okay with giving giving it up though.

Um then I do want to find if there's anyone else in the audience to speak on the on this from the public.

Or I can close the public hearing.

Is there is no one else signed to speak on this item, but if you're here to speak on it?

Well I just like to know that.

So could you address the questions uh because I think that the compatibility is based on the um the the where garages were placed within the period of significance and like what was the average, for instance, of those locations.

So we we don't have a percentage, but we do have uh sandboard maps that record exactly where garages were placed.

If there were variations, we can also sort of see what the common the common denominator is for.

Presentation mode, please?

Location on the lot.

Can you go to the sandborne and context area, please?

Okay, so if I may um address the first part.

So the criteria that addresses that is criterion 11.

The distance from the property line to the front and side walls, porches, and exterior features of any proposed addition or alteration must be compatible with the distance to the property line of similar elements of existing contributing structures in the context area.

The context area by definition is that block face.

And therefore, for the 500 block there, um the the two-story attached garage front setback is less than what can be found in the historic um in the context area, and it's closer to the front property line than typical garages in the context area.

And then the issue with this one is that yes, it is separated from the original structure by four feet, but from the right of way, it does block that view of that east elevation.

And and therefore, again, if we look at the can you go to the sandboard?

Most of I want to say most of the garages, especially the two-story ones, are pushed towards the rear of the lot, and it is not closer to the front.

Um and then the detail on on the garage.

Um staff felt that with it being close, again, we're discussing the submission, what what he submitted.

With with it being close, um, sorry, Samantha, can you go to the 3D, the the kind of real one, the photo one?

The other side, the other one.

Yes, here.

It's it's closer to the front and then mimics the original house.

If this was pushed towards the rear of the lot, it wouldn't be as visible, and maybe we wouldn't have asked for all the details to be removed, but with it being closer, staff felt that simplifying it and switching it is is gonna have a better effect in the on that street.

That's that's what staff felt like the felt criteria.

Excuse me.

That it seems like like Mr.

Yes, I know this is before agreeing with that what he's doing is in agreement with what they want, correct?

They haven't agreed because they haven't reviewed it.

Um this this is a this is one where um correct me if I'm wrong.

I thought I heard this drawing the well, not this rendering, but the rendering that was put up just a moment ago at the end of this package was just submitted, and staff you all have not reviewed the revised submission quest question.

Yes.

So be because the changes happened late in the game, kind of, uh staff hasn't fully reviewed it.

But he did address um simplifying the garage, pushing it um more towards the back, um, and then switching it to a hip instead of what um he had.

Um I think we also discussed the second story edition.

I don't know if you did Yeah, he dropped the ceiling height.

We haven't fully reviewed it, and that is why um staff um said we can submit it as applicants material for you to ask commission if if they can um switch their recommendation.

But again, the one that we fully reviewed was the submission that we see right now, and that is why it's a denial.

But would you my question then would you, based on this other submission that was put in, would you recommend uh denial or or or would you recommend a deferral since you you you have seen this or I'm just asking what from the staff's position, what is your recommendation based on because right now I I think we're gonna be we're gonna be reviewing this project before us on the screen.

So the project submitted as is.

Right.

Staff feels is a recommendation of the denial, which we have because we we feel it's a recommendation of denial.

The what what he submitted is he he did address a uh a few, I want to say several issues that we had and several things that we had an issue for.

So it is definitely closer to an approval.

Um I don't know if um Commission would like to have approval with conditions addressing um so we don't have to just rely on the design that he submitted, or you can say approved as um submitted by the applicant.

Right.

My um where I'm having some issues here is that we've never made a vote up or down on a project that staff hadn't vetted before we got to this stage.

I mean, so that's why I'm asking the question about deferral, because denial and deferral are two different things.

I mean, but um I'm I'm trying to understand it's hard to even consider this new evidence if you all haven't reviewed it.

Like that's I can't recall that happening in the past on the Commission.

To be fair, we haven't fully reviewed it.

Again, it was submitted late.

But as as far as we were going, um the approach is always if we can put conditions on it, we would rather do do that.

Um so it's at the discretion of the Commission.

But yes, we haven't fully reviewed it.

But he did address uh several issues that we had with it, but um we haven't fully reviewed it.

Thank you, Yasmin.

So are there other questions for staff?

Um Commissioner Browning.

Hey, help me understand.

It sounds like there was a deadline for whatever reason that deadline wasn't met.

Y'all haven't evaluated this.

So if I may explain.

He submitted an application with drawings.

That met the deadline.

It wouldn't have been here if it did not meet the deadline.

But but then he was open to revisions to the I I believe when he realized that it's a recommendation of denial.

He's like, what can I do to make it work?

I I would like to get an approval and I'm flexible on changing um things.

And and that's when we had the meeting, and he was quick to to change.

Um and I and I told him because the drafts were uploaded, I cannot change the drawings and include them all.

What I can do is I can attach them as supporting documents under applicant's material, and you are free to um submit come and present and ask for the commission to have a different action.

Yeah.

This strikes me as the second item today with a similar type of circumstance.

And then we had the last meeting with a mistake.

And that's what it is.

Um there's no problem with folks making mistakes.

But I do have a problem with a whole bunch of images being presented where y'all haven't thoroughly evaluated it, and I'm not sure what we're really addressing.

Um so personally, I would encourage the applicant to withdraw the this item from this agenda and resubmit in a way that lets staff lets staff uh evaluate it.

Otherwise, I at least from my perspective, there's a risk of denial here.

This seems to be a repetitive uh a repetitive pattern or at least a pattern that's developing the sure blaky.

It seems to me that we should either uh support staff recommendation and deny or defer until the project can be resubmitted, staff can evaluate it.

Because we don't we don't act on petitions from members of the public.

We act on staff's recommendations.

Motion to defer.

We just voted on another application where the packet was incorrect and incomplete, and now we might be voting on one where staff is admitting they haven't been able to fully vet what's been submitted.

So motion to defer.

Before we do a second on that, I would like to know whether the applicant is willing to withdraw and resubmit with all of these projects that we submit, we negotiate after we have submitted.

And so this is nothing unusual.

I was very shocked that we had a denial on this project on Friday when I saw it posted, and I called first thing Monday morning and said, I need to meet with you because I need to figure out what I need to do to get this thing over the goal line.

I don't want to be in front of you guys.

I want to be on consent agenda.

And so we sat uh, Yasmeen and I, and we came up with what she felt like was a solution to get this over the goal line, and that was moving the garage back five feet, which we've done, and we've already given her the drawing.

She hasn't had time because she's been busy.

And then uh the uh lower on the roof height, uh, those were the two and and fixing the front of the of the garage.

So this is nothing unusual.

It's not like I just happen to have two of them today, but it's nothing unusual.

And I I don't really want to defer all.

I want I want to I want y'all to vote yes or no because we've done nothing wrong.

We've done everything the staff has asked us to do, and and literally went down there Monday and had drawings back to her by noon the next morning.

So I think there may be a new way of operating in the planning department, and they're sending us actually our first views at these materials on Fridays.

So I think someone did you a favor by hearing you so late in the stage, uh, which has had an impact on our get the timing of our receiving these.

I I would like to actually suggest that we talk about the submitted plan uh and talk about what issues we may have in a thorough way with the plan that was submitted and that was vetted by staff, because there are other issues I think might come up, and I think we should get them out on the table this time, so that if it does come back to us after a deferral, we're not raising then issues that were apparent to us already now.

But I think the the main thing is what you're proposing is essentially from our point of view a different process than we work with.

And uh we can't really, I would say maybe someone disagrees, I would say we can't really operate that way.

Chair.

Yeah, between the state of Texas changed the notice requirement, and so that went into effect September 1st.

So we used to not post these until Monday afternoon.

But because of the new notice requirements from the state, we had to advance those to Friday, so it's it's lessened the amount of time that the applicants have to work with staff.

May I ask, is there are there other aspects of the original proposal that you would like to discuss before we have any more action for staff?

Yes.

So I'm concerned about uh the impact on the original structure.

We have an addition that in this case does seem to take over half of the roof of the original structure.

If I look at page uh 12, the origin existing and proposed site plans.

That new addition takes takes quite a bit of material away.

This is something we talked about in the past couple of years, just the um the kind of waste of of original materials, the the framing and the roofing and the the back elevation is completely altered.

Um then there's the fact that it does tower over the original one.

I I find I don't think it would be too imposing.

Um it's not strictly true that you can do whatever you want on the back of a building.

Um we do care about what how that addition looks from the side, and and I think it in some point in the staff's comments, it the the addition doesn't come across as subordinate to the existing.

It comes across as a kind of agglomeration of something new onto the existing that's bigger than it is.

So I feel concerned about the overall volume of the addition, and in addition about this the relationship of the garage to the side setback where it's it's actually quite a bit closer to the lot line on the side.

I know we've addressed the front, but I'm thinking of the side.

So those are my concerns about uh the plan that staff vetted and has suggested that should be denied.

Are there any other discussion items?

I'd like to just piggyback a little on what you're saying.

I agree with you about the that we kind of lose a little bit of the original house in this design.

I mean, just from a massing standpoint, and you know, the addition when you bring the garage forward with the two-story on top of it, you know, I don't find that the it presents itself as subservient to the historic structure.

And I understand there's some need to pull the garage forward for the app for the owner, but I also think you're adding a dormer to the other side of the house, which is also changing the form of the original structure.

So you're kind of contaminated it on one side and adding a dormer on the other, and we're losing a little bit of the original house.

So I don't know if that dormer is negotiable or if it would just preserve more of the original lines of the house.

Um the dormer, and how far forward from the original from the existing rear wall of the house is the garage.

Is it possible to get it more in line with the existing rear wall, the front of it, so that it is a little bit farther back?

It is uh 611, 7.

So it's about uh right at 18 feet forward of the back corner of the house.

Okay, so it's not possible to get it to the back corner of the house.

It's tight.

Um maybe by a foot or two, but it's just I mean, the farther back the garage goes, the the whole project looks much much better because the original I know you know.

I agree, I agree with you.

Yeah, I agree.

I mean, so I would encourage to try to get it as far back as possible.

And if you could maybe eliminate the dormer just so that the form of the original house kind of is very preserved.

I get that you might be trying to use space, and I I don't I didn't look at all the floor plans to see how it's integrated.

But then lastly, go ahead.

Can't it appears we have a picture from 1965 of the house in the packet on page one?

Is it I I feel like the the columns as drawn are a different proportion than what we see in that picture.

Is it possible to to make them more consistent with the because I think I think having higher brick creates this, it kind of squats down the porch.

And I think if you're having so much mass at the back, if you can lift it, it there's something about the proportion of the column and the brick that I think in the original that picture makes it look taller.

Okay.

Yeah, the intention was to match the and I know there might be some code issues with rail height or something, I understand that, but the closer to that would be better because I feel like the brick is a little out of scale with the the wood portion in the at least the rendering that we have.

So those are my my points.

Can I say one thing?

The the addition is actually lower than the ridge height of the house.

So, you know, if you look at the the the uh rendering I sent you, the ridge height on the main house is taller than the addition.

So you don't even see it from the street.

Where a lot of these you you see.

I mean, the uh a lot of the pictures I showed you earlier, you see most of the additions.

And so I don't know why when we're able to hide the um addition behind the existing roof, how the big how the exit how the addition becomes uh too dominant.

I don't well, I don't have any issue with the addition behind the roof.

I I really take more issue with the dormer.

I mean, maybe if it was like a shed dormer.

I can get rid of the dormer.

I didn't that's what uh Yasmin recommended a shed dormer.

I mean, I'm just saying I find that it's it's a it's a big kind of addition that's right on the existing house.

Because when you look at the the house has very charming lines to me when you look at the the original photos of it.

Um that just kind of interrupts its its form.

So if if you can work with that, that's fine.

I mean, it's up to you and your client ultimately.

The the reason I did the dormer is because we did three dormers on the house on the next block right across the street.

And it here's one of them you can see on the side.

And this was a big oh no, the photos are gone here.

Um document camera, please.

This was we have one more photo here somewhere.

Um we have a a dormer on two dormers on the opposite side of this particular house.

Um it happens to be this house.

And we have two dormers on the right-hand side, and we have two dormers on the left that were approved by the commission for us to do in order to use the attic space for bedrooms, actually, on that one.

And we ended up uh that the the dormer that you see on this proposal today is actually in the attic space and in a game room area.

When you come to the top of the stairs, it's right there.

And so that's all we were trying to do is get light into that game room.

Um, it uh Yasmin asked me to put a shed dormer on it, and I said, let me do the 3D rendering first, and let's look at it.

And if you don't like it, I can do a shed dormer.

But it uh again, every one of these, I don't submit a full, I don't submit a drawing that doesn't get changed ever.

And and no one does.

Everyone has to go meet with staff members and and go through the drawing and figure out what they don't like and what they like.

They meet with the commissioners or whatever that meeting is, and then they come back to you.

When I first met with Yasmin on this particular house, there were three items.

The dormer she did not like.

Um the one of the 3D rendering to prove up some other stuff, and she kind of she didn't like the garage, the the uh stuff on the front of the garage.

And then uh Thanksgiving got in the way, a lot of things got in the way, she's busy, and and I sent an email and said, Hey, what's going on with this?

And uh, because I thought, well, I must be okay, and then I get the denial on Friday evening, and I was flipped out about it.

I was like, you know, wait a minute, I don't want to be in denial.

I want to I am here to work with the staff to get my projects through on consent agenda.

We don't have time to to wait another month and then another month and then another month, and it takes six months to get this stuff through.

And and if somebody is young couple buy this house, they want to get their remodel started, they don't want to wait till uh you know, we're missing uh commission hearing in March.

So we're gonna get April will get all this stuff wrapped up, and then by the time they get a permit, it'll be July or August.

You know, we want to get started.

We want to get started.

And so that's why I went and met with Yasmin on Monday and she was nice enough to give me the time to do it to say what do you need to make this happen?

And and I I did everything she said, which wasn't that much.

Push the garage back five feet, which we did, drop the ceiling height on the second floor at the back, which we did, and and she's still not crazy about the dormer either, which which I can talk to my client about that.

But we need some light in that game room.

Thank you, Sam.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sidel, you had another comment before I call for the Yeah, I think I have more of a general question or comment, but I think it's pertinent to uh this project, which is why I'm bringing it up now for staff.

Is it uh it seems in a lot of these uh discussions we're talking about too far forward as it relates to the rest of the block.

Can I suggest that uh for a more informed body, if you are comparing the proximity to an exterior wall, whether it be on a garage, whether it be on a on on the existing home or on the main house.

If it's a comparison of the rest of the houses on the block face, bring us the dimensions of the other houses on the block face.

Because too far forward is it it's it's it's very hard to make that decision.

And I think that was helpful in these discussions.

So staff did sure dimension would be something we will um look into.

Thank you.

Um for sure.

Um but staff tried.

We have the sandborne showing that garages are toward the rear, and then uh I know the Google image is not great, but it kind of it shows that most of the structures are are at the rear, but we will make sure to provide dimensions next time.

Thank you.

I think the outlying issue is a tandem garage.

So I don't think any of the other garages on that street have a double garage in depth.

And that's what's driving the because because the garage is pushed to the back, but it's it's two cars in tandem, and that's so there are no other garages that on that block face that have that condition, and that's what that's what's driving part of it.

Sure, but you would agree with me that the front of any garage what no matter what the size of it is is the marker.

Agreed, right?

And that's what I'm that's what I'm talking about.

It's really just the sandborn is gives us the evidence of what that is, and and we can see there's sometimes there's a variation, but more more or less they kind of fall into the similar zone.

Yeah, yeah.

So but I do have a motion, and I have to call for a second.

Um is it our motion was to defer and I'll second the motion.

So before I vote, then I will have a little last discussions on that.

So Commissioner Browning, you wanted to speak Yeah.

Yeah, I I I agree that I feel like this one, I and I understand the time constraints with the holidays, but I I feel like this one we were able to get there on the last one, that this one just has a little too much that's not developed.

Not saying that it can't get there.

Uh hopefully we can turn it around quickly where we where we don't lose any more time, but I agree.

I think it's just it's not quite quite cooked.

Okay, um all in favor of the motion to defer.

Yes, you may, yes.

Fine.

Um just to staff, please try not to do favors.

Um you know, I mean, because you may feel like you're doing something good by bending procedures, but it could actually be a disservice in the longer Ryan or in the bigger picture.

Staff fully agrees.

I appreciate your generosity, but um, Commissioner Davis, you have a comment.

So my comment would be that regardless defer or not defer for an applicant to find out on Friday before the meeting that his plan is not approved, it's going to be denied.

That's not acceptable.

Um they have to have more time than that.

So, Sam, with all due respect, I did tell him when we had a meeting that that garage is not typical from what we have, and why why is it not at the rear?

I did let him know, and I did tell him that.

Um I I felt uh from him that there was no flexibility in the design.

And and so that is why we didn't discuss it further, because he made sure that he wanted that outdoor kitchen in the back.

Typically, most of his um most of the designs do have the garage towards the rear.

Um, and therefore um when I addressed that outdoor kitchen and why is the garage closer, he said the the homeowner wants the outdoor kitchen, and so that was the main problem.

So if he's not gonna push it towards the rear, then what is staff going to do?

Um and typically we always do that, but we felt there was no flexibility, and um yes, staff is doing their best.

Again, we were a much bigger team, we're a smaller team.

So we're all humans and a lot of us got sick.

Um typically we're on top of it.

Um, and we're just we're doing our best.

Thank you, as me.

So with that, um I've got a motion from Commissioner Broadbeck of a second from Commissioner Cosgrove to defer all in favor of the deferral deferring.

Aye.

Any uh opposed any abstentions?

Um Commissioner Garcia abstain.

Okay, we will now move on uh to item five, and I'm going to uh I have anybody signed up to speak.

This one should have no issues.

The next item on the agenda um is 3458 in wood drive.

Okay, so uh staff member Yasmin Arslan, I submit for your consideration agenda item B5 at 3458 inward drive.

Um this is in the River Oaks subdivision, Section 9.

The property includes a historic 9,270 square foot, two-story brick veneer, single-family residence situated on a 23,400 square foot um interior lot.

It is a contributing um colon colonial revival residence constructed circa 1939, located in River Oaks.

The residence is known as the Cleveland Sewell Um House, a City of Houston protected landmark designated in 2009.

This application is a revision to work at the interior gate.

As approved November 9, 2023, the interior gate walls are attached to the main historic house, making the element subject to C of A review.

Work at the property is in progress with active permits.

Revision is for approval of route iron instead of the previously approved wood gate.

Two gate design options are presented, approval of both option is requested.

Um the homeowner would like to go with option two, but staff is recommending approval for option one because we feel that option two is too detailed and decorated and does not match again.

The original uh material was the wood gate, which they got approved for, but then they wanted to change that, and staff feels that the first option um is more appropriate and compatible with the um with the original house.

If you may show the existing um photos, please for the house.

It does have a very similar design and and that is why um if you scroll down, there's a there's a um detail image on the okay, so but we were we it's not on consent because the homeowner would rather go with option two.

And so um commission has the power to switch the recommendation.

Thank you.

Before I open the public hearing, I just for the commission.

I believe in our design review, we talked about this and that there are wrought iron elements on the existing house.

So the use of change the material from wood to wrought iron is not totally out of character for the the house itself.

Um I don't have anybody signed up to speak.

Is there anyone in the public that wishes to speak on this item?

So I'll close the public hearing and there any deliberation.

Motion to approve staff recommendation.

I have a motion to approve the staff and a second.

Was that Commissioner Hill?

Um all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstention?

The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you.

I feel better now.

Okay, we'll now move on to item number six.

All right, y'all buckle up.

Uh good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission.

This is staff person Kara Quigley.

I submit item B6 at 728 Euclid in Woodland Heights Historic District for your consideration.

The property includes a non-contributing one-story altered brick bungalow situated on a 5,670 square foot corner lot.

The site was approved for replat by the City of Houston Planning Commission to subdivide the previously 11,325 square foot corner lot into two smaller parcels, now addressed as 728 Euclid and 2924 Watson.

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing non-contributing structure and construct a new two-story wood frame, 3,776 square foot single family residence with a 648 square foot attached garage in its place.

The design features an L-shaped wrap front porch with tapered wood columns supported by a brick base on the northwest corner facing Euclid and Watson.

The house will have smooth cementitious siding with a six-inch reveal as well as a board and batten detail on the second floor over the garage and the northeast corner facing Euclid, as depicted on the elevation drawings.

The maximum ridge height of the house will be 32 feet four inches with a 29-foot 10-inch ridge height of the attached garage.

The setback to the frontmost wall facing Euclid will be 20 foot 2 and a half inches with a 15 and 2 and a half inch setback to the front porch.

The applicant has been working closely with staff on the proposed design and has done numerous design reviews since the initial project submission, along with consultation from HAHC commissioners.

Staff recommends approval.

As of 12 p.m.

noon today, the application has received five letters of opposition from the public via preservation tracker and one via email, which I have already submitted for public record.

Staff has determined the proposed design satisfy satisfies the criteria for new construction in a historic district and is representative of a contemporary interpretation of various architectural details seen on contributing structures in the context area and the historic district on an atypical lot.

Chair and members of the commission, the applicant Tony Minaco is here to speak on the item.

I am also available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, I'll open the public hearing, and we have a number of speakers signed up.

The first is the applicant, uh Anthony Monaco.

Just say your name.

Thank you all for being here and uh leaving this open for discussion.

Um great job putting this all together.

Uh this whole journey started about six months ago.

Uh I chose to engage early with the historic district to understand how to replat it to try to fit the most features I can and make sure I'm adhering to everything in historic process.

I chose to do the two square lots to fit that.

Um I know that doesn't matter in this situation because that is a whole completely different uh department, right?

That's chapter 42 replatting division.

So it is separate.

Um, but I just want to know I was going through that even from the beginning.

Uh so once we got that fully approved, um, they moved that that plot actually shows 15-foot um setbacks and 19-foot garage building lines.

Uh working with with the district, um, we even chose to compromise and go back to 20 foot to try to try to make every everyone happy, neighbors, district, commissioners.

Um, so that was a um compromise there, which I was happy to do.

Um again, a lot went into it, a lot of changes.

I think it was a total of six revisions.

Um I was open to all feedback um as long as I was reasonable and followed the the rules, right?

Um so I think I I made multiple changes, adhered to everything you guys needed, and uh I hope that that could get it through.

So probably didn't cover everything here.

If there's questions, let me know.

I got a bunch of data behind it that I can show.

So thank you.

Are there any questions of the speaker?

Okay.

Thank you.

We do have more speakers signed up.

Um the next speaker is Michael Graves.

Forgive me if I read in some notes uh prepared.

I'm not looking at my phone.

Um good afternoon, Mr.

Chair and members of the commission.

Uh thank you for this opportunity to address the commission.

My name is Michael Graves.

I live at the 3304 Beauchamp Street in the Woodland Heights Historic District in an original craftsman cottage built by the William A.

White Company.

Mine is one of the very home very homes that the historic district was created to protect.

But I am here today in my capacity as the president of the Woodland Heights Civic Association.

And I appear this afternoon to express our opposition to the proposed projects at 728 Euclid and the following one at 2924 Watson.

It's our understanding that the historic district requires, even for new builds, and quoting directly criterion number two, that the exterior features of new construction must be compatible with the exterior features of the existing contributing structures in the context area.

We assert that the proposed new homes do not meet this requirement.

While there are many issues with the proposed designs with respect to 728 Euclid, the front loading attached garage is particularly egregious aspect of the proposal and one that might be more appropriate in a suburban setting.

Rather than enumerate the various specific ways these plans are non-compliant, I refer you to a written comment filed by Mrs.

Melissa Sternfelds, who's a past director of deed restrictions for our organization.

Further, Julie Moore, the current director of deed restrictions, also submitted a set of written comments.

As presented, they represent a failure of the developer to properly appreciate the historic character of the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker who is signed up is Melissa Stern Sternfelds.

Good afternoon.

Can I put this on this for the document camera, please?

Okay.

Um so my name is Melissa Sternfells.

I'm the former director for the deep restrictions in the neighborhood, and I'm actually a neighbor, live at the 700 block.

This is a photo from the Woodland Heights guidelines, and you'll notice that house in kind of gray, that's my house.

So I'm the poster child for the neighborhood and proud to be.

And in fact, that's the block face that we're talking about, coincidentally.

Um so as I said, I live at 714 Euclid on the same block as 728 Euclid, and I'm around the corner from 2924 Watson.

Um while all of the blocks and all the houses and all the historic districts are worthy of protection.

We would say that this house and this block is the bellwether.

We are literally the block face for the community.

We strongly oppose the plan to build two slab on grade spec houses on what has always been a single lot since the original development.

Um the proposed this proposal violates the guidelines and is fundamentally inconsistent with the scale, character, and fabric of our street.

To fit two houses, the developer seeks reduce setbacks, attached garages, slab foundations, and extra height, uh features that create the look of a townhouse development.

And it disregards the historic integrity of our block.

These changes don't benefit our community.

They exist solely to maximize profit for a developer who bought subject to the very restrictions that it begs for your uh uh relief from.

Beyond design, this project creates real problems.

Slap slab foundations will worsen water water runoff and flooding on a street that already sees knee level water during heavy rain.

And these houses are planned for a busy corner where I-10 and I-45 traffic is currently being diverted.

And now for the and for the foreseeable future.

This is going to compound uh congestion and safety concerns that we have at Euclid and Watson.

Homeowners have taken time from our busy days to come before you to write comments to follow along as there was the replatting.

Oh, motion to grant the speaker more time.

Second.

C Smit.

All in favor, granting more time.

I thank you.

You can proceed to um.

But we're asking you to protect our homes.

The developer is here, he is asking you to protect his money.

We want to protect our community.

And every person who is purchased on this block, including the developer, to protect the character of our block face and to protect the character of our homes.

So please join the residents, the people who live at the 700 block of Euclid and telling the developer no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker signed up is Adam Turner.

Hey, good morning, everyone.

Thank you very much for letting me speak.

And thank you for being here.

This is not an easy job.

Thank you for going through all the paperwork.

Nothing about this is ever easy.

Right.

I have a number of concerns with the plans as I stand, and I've got some kind of documentation to back it up.

I figured that'd be the best way to approach everyone.

So if you don't mind if I show um scroll, document camera, please.

Thank you so much.

I'm gonna do my best to scroll through a few different documents.

Um this is the the preservation manual as it is online.

Um states in really clear language kind of what we're going for.

And there are two points that I think there's kind of egregious um disagreement with the actual plans.

The first is a setback, um, and the second is the the garage situation.

Um so I'll talk about the the setback first, if that's all right.

Um so the current plans have uh 15 foot setback to the porch, 20 foot setback to the house.

Um there's also the staff did a great job of going and measuring all of the the setbacks on that side of the the block.

It's an average of 26 feet setback on that block face.

So that 15 foot is a huge disruption.

It's not at all consistent.

And that 15 feet to the porch, if we look at the block face.

Um I have the same picture Melissa does here.

You can see that block face is so cool, but it's the the 26 feet is to the first roof line, which in many cases here we actually have um the porch being that first roof line.

Um especially there's a let's see.

This one right here, 700 Euclid.

You can see that that cutout, which is all porch right there, and that actually uh here we go.

So there's there's the the nice work that the staff had done that shows that that's actually factored in.

Motion to extend time.

Sorry.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor.

Please proceed, sir.

Awesome.

Thank you so much.

I'm I'm usually not very verbose, so this is uh weird for me to go over time.

Um but so you can see it's it's really that 26 feet goes back to the the uh porch and not to the the first roof line.

He's got 15 and 20 to the to the uh building, so it doesn't really work either way.

Um and we actually all agreed about that um just a couple of months ago here.

This is the minutes from the meeting um in August, I believe, when we were talking about 702 Euclid.

And those plans got approved with the the caveat that they got pushed back to 26 feet.

Um that's actually what it looks like in revised plans.

He has 25 feet to the porch, 30 feet to the building.

Um, and that's exactly what I'm asking for here.

Here it would require a complete redesign, and that's what I'm asking for.

He's trying to cram two houses on one lot, and so it's gonna be really tough to actually do anything because he's he's pushed all the boundaries all the way around the the rest of the lot.

Um thank you.

The garage stinks.

Thank you.

Oh, uh I also have a sorry, I've got a petition here signed by all the neighbors saying the same thing.

So you can keep that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Monaco, uh, you are afforded um a second chance to speak.

Uh well for first, let me just ask, is there anyone else in the audience here to speak on this item?

If you can please come forward and um state your name in the microphone and then address the commissioner, hi, my name is Amelia Williams.

I am the neighbor to the house that's being um up for an application today.

I echo what everyone has also said, so I'm not gonna reiterate the setback issues that I have with this home.

Um at the previous meeting that we had, Anthony said to us, you know, um, this is my job, I'm here to do my job, and I want to respect that as long as he's following all of the guidelines that are put forth with this commission.

Presentation mode, please.

Echoing that just recently at 702 Euclid, it was um stated that it needed to be a 25 foot setback.

I'm not sure why there would be anything different required in this situation.

Um, but just here to kind of state that you know this is important to our family and um all of the community that we keep the character and um everything that we have put into this neighborhood um to keep the term alive.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Bodico, if you could reset your name for the record and Anthony Monaco.

Okay, I got a lot of information here because that was a lot of comments.

Um presentation mode, please.

Okay, to start, uh I did before the replat, but that does not matter in this situation, but wanted to go through it.

15 foot build lines, 19 foot garage build lines.

This is a uh Harris County document, it's recorded, it's a legal tented document.

This is a zoomed in version for 72 at Euclid.

Again, it was in a minimum lot size.

This lot is still larger than the minimum lot size, following all rules.

Again, this is gonna be standing.

Point of this meeting is to understand the value design compatibility.

Has nothing to deal with to do with the lot sizes.

Every essential respect, scale, form, materials, window, patterns, roof forms, and site design has met all expectations and uh fit for the heights historic district guidelines.

No, back here.

There's like technical difficulties.

There we go.

It's not us in this room.

Perfect.

Make sure someone's not sabotaging.

Yeah.

Okay.

Just I mean, as you all know, you've been doing this a lot longer than me.

Um, but the I mean, 20-foot setback is very normal for Heights Historic District, right?

Design most of them were are 20 foot, most are even 15 foot.

Um I really wanted to show this because this I surveyed the entire block of Euclid just to understand if it's a good thing.

It can be passed.

It can be passed around the bench, I believe.

Yeah.

So there's a claim that it's 26 foot.

So first off, we need to understand context area.

Context area.

I am on the corner and I'm non-contributing.

Context area is both sides of the street.

The other side of the street, this is all this is done by a licensed surveyor.

I can send you a survey now number, not making anything up.

These houses are at 10 feet.

There's 10 foot, there's 15 foot.

This shows all of them.

I average them out.

I think it's from 9 to 10 feet.

Um and the reason is because those are 5,000 square foot loss, there's a hundred foot deep lots.

Yes, some of the neighbors on the south do have a deeper, but that's their choice, right?

People need to understand that neighborhoods back in the day were built based on deed restrictions, and then the historic community was created after, right?

So people built based on deed restrictions.

So everything was followed based on deed restrictions, and that's what we're doing here today.

Still, while following all the historic rules.

Uh let me know if there's any questions that I do want to show that on the screen when I can, because that's probably the most important aspect of that.

Um that is why working with the historic district, we came up with the 20-foot as a compromise instead of me going to 15.

I want the 20 to come try to make a compromise between 26 and 15, and even 10.

I mean, the north side of Euclid is it's clear, you can see the picture, it's 10 feet.

Um there's neighbors here who are saying 26.

I have a survey of their house on this document.

So uh that is not true.

Foundation wise, we're doing two two feet up.

We're not doing uh they're trying to say slab on grade, basic level house.

We're not, we're two feet up.

You guys have all seen it.

It's been done dozens of times in the historic district.

I don't think that's a that's not a big discussion point.

Height compatibility.

There was comments about ridge height.

We're at 324.

The house directly across the street is at 36.

Um, I'm well within that.

We originally started at, I think 38.

I dropped it all the way down.

We messed with roofs.

We got down to 32.

Again, I believe your commission approved 702 Euclid uh last month.

The COA says that one was at 32 also.

So I believe the ridge height is compatible.

Conclusion across all visually significant elements, setback height, roof form, massing foundation appearances, and garage location.

The project is fully compatible with historic development patterns and WHD guidelines.

Uh did under hear that comment about it's a front loading garage.

I don't know if the president was mistaken or didn't see the documents, but it's it's on the side.

It's a corner lot.

That's how most houses are in the heights.

There's multiple ones that do have attached corner lots.

Um I have a whole list of all those if you want to see them, but it's you've you've been doing this long enough, you know that that is true.

Uh and that's all.

I have I could pass these around.

I made a bunch of tables and charts and and whatnot.

But if there's any other specific questions, I can answer those two.

Sorry about this.

Somehow working.

Okay, there's just there we have a question um from Commissioner Blakely.

I can leave all this with you.

So thank you for providing this information.

Um what does this dotted line represent that that the distance setback is measured off of?

That is based on actual property line.

The property line.

So not like the sidewalk.

It's right about the sidewalk.

I think it's about like two inches from the they did it based on sidewalk.

So that's why I did it.

I paid a survey on top of it.

Yeah.

You did property line?

We did property.

Okay.

They did property line this slide.

So the street is another 10 feet or something in front of this line, like the curb, like you know, like where the street starts.

Okay.

And then because you're you haven't shown your property on this, or have you?

Yeah, and that was a good another thing because I have another document.

Uh no, I mean, just I I I I can't handle too many documents, but I am wondering what is the number for your proposal if measured this way.

If measured that way, yeah.

Like where I want to put my property.

Yeah, what do you think?

I mean, based on that, I could I should technically go to 15 and then put the porch in front, like those houses all did.

What would if you put yours on this drawing, what would the number be of your of yours?

It would be 20 foot.

Yeah, it'd be 20 foot.

So I'm going above and beyond those.

I was trying to try to show an example to show that I am meeting all this criteria.

I'm going above and beyond, pushing my house further back than all the neighbors on the north side.

Okay, so yours would be like here, like correct.

Yes, that house is very that's the corner house.

It has a wraparound porch.

That was approved, I think years ago, and they're at 10 feet.

I'm even five or ten feet back from that.

What do you think is the source of the difference between the way you see the setback and the I mean the setback is objective, right?

So why why do your neighbors feel that yours is farther forward if you're saying it's actually farther backward?

Maybe they didn't measure it.

That's why I paid a license surveyor to measure it.

So there was not an opinion in it.

It was just it would have been great if you had included yours on the I have all of them.

Okay, so it was just too big of a block in the city.

I'd love to see that one.

Okay, I can send that.

And also, I mean, my front porch right now is at 14.8 feet.

My current house that is on the on the existing house.

So if I chose not to demo that and did a rehab, I'm at the same distance as what I'm proposing.

Yeah.

14 feet from the property line.

Yeah, we can.

Oh, nice.

We can try.

It's on the screen.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

So yeah, see, I'm at 15.2.

First, that's that are you talking about the corner house?

I think the question is do you have the layout for the block face that you're on?

That that's like that's the we uh this what was passed around is the opposite side of the street, is my understanding.

Yeah.

I have I have my specific one.

With all of them together.

Which is the that's that's because that matters the most, I think, in this conversation.

I would pass this around.

I mean, this is because I mean it could it would be reasonable to say, okay, keep with the existing setback of the non-conforming testing.

If you all go to page 12 and 13 of the staff report, I also have from uh Houston Map Viewer where staff had gone through and measured from each corner of all the existing houses on the block face, both sides, um, and took the averages based on multiple different categories with this.

The next page, if you'll go there.

It shows it all broken down for the average totals by the south side of the street.

Which is the side that 728 is on.

I did it by contributing houses, non-contributing houses, and all combined per side, and then all combined.

You can see on there that um for both of them combined the contributing houses.

The average was 18.91 feet.

For both of them non-contributing, it's 19.

All of them combine, you're at 18.84.

So that's where staff came up with the 20 foot, not based on just the south side, because if you do look at just the south side, it is a little bit higher.

But you have to look at the whole block face all together and consider all different ones.

And if you are comparing it to only the contributing, it's still farther back than 18.91.

It's at 20 foot two and a half.

Yes.

I think this is an important question on the south side of the street.

Um what's the average lot size there?

So it's in there.

Sorry, 151 by 50, which comes out to I'm not very good at math.

66.

On the page before foot lots on the I didn't have the average of the lot sizes, but the page before that I do have for every single property, it has the individual lots listed just as HCAD list.

So considerably larger lots on the south side, I think is a component to consider when looking at setbacks.

Yes.

Um well the amount of space that that was available to build on uh back in the day.

I mean, one could say I I think the this is I think worth discussing, but um one could say that the setback is becomes an issue for sort of historic preservation with respect to the appearance of someone standing on the street or standing in the right-of-way.

Like, does it change the appearance of the block?

And if you take that point of view, then it's not necessarily so important how far back uh how deep the lot is.

Well, uh quick question, uh Commissioner Seidel, was your point that on larger lots, generally speaking, they had deeper setbacks.

Presentation modems.

Smaller lots that might have correct more shallow setback dimension.

Correct.

Uh just as a general comment.

I and and it applies here on the street, obviously.

Um I I do have one comment because I I have to go for an immovable prior commitment.

Um I have a question concerning the design elements.

I feel like I want the the rest of the commission to know my position and that I do not take any issue with the setbacks.

Um I feel like there is a uh we're in the you know, because there isn't a hard and fast rule, we're uh that the applicant has made some pretty good considerations on that.

I do have um I'm I'm trying to be a little more um you know instead of speaking in generalities, I think it is um I think it's item two on the criteria um that I'm kind of taking issue with that what what sort of discussions and uh or or uh work was done in terms of the design of the exterior of the home, especially street facing.

Because there is a there is a uh comment in here from staff related to a more contemporary interpretation.

Can you talk about that?

About what makes it a contemporary interpretation of it, or just the features that were both incorporated?

Okay, so um as far as it being a contemporary interpretation, um it's a new construction, so we consider pretty much all new constructions a contemporary interpretation of existing features that would be in properties in the context area and the rest of the district.

Um the design pages that on so for supporting documentation uh page 24 through what page is that 24 through 32.

Um I did include in there all the different versions that this has gone through, taking into consideration the context area.

Um and you know, looking at um the wrap porch.

Um at first, or some of the earlier um versions of it, you know, had a full wall of glass and you know, a side porch that was significantly more prominent that was being mistaken as a front entry, and that's one of the things that we were recommending is having you know it be very clear that that street facing elevation be clear that that is where you would enter the house.

Um the tapered wood columns, it's a feature that's seen signific in you know so many craftsman era houses.

Um else fenestration, having it be it simplified to you know one over one windows.

Um does that kind of help answer the question Yes.

Okay.

A question about these versions.

Is there is one of these being proposed actually, or are these six version six and we wanted to show that just to show we've been taking feedback to meet the guidelines and fit into the neighborhood?

I don't want to build something that's not in the that doesn't fit the neighborhood.

That doesn't help anyone, doesn't help neighbors, doesn't help me.

About the vertical siding.

That seems like a feature.

I just see widely spaced vertical lines, is that what that is?

Yes, that was uh meant to be the board and batten detailing.

Is there a rationale for choosing that in a neighborhood that has sort of horizontal siding?

Um adding a little bit of character part of that contemporary interpretation.

Something that's not necessarily mimicking, but still visually compatible.

And from staff's point of view, I think you all focused on this wraparound porch as a as a as a recessive element that to um blend into the context of the neighborhood.

That's correct.

My my question uh for staff is if we could look back at your setbacks on the drawing that you did that show the subject property, I'm interested in understanding the prevailing setback on that side of the street.

So you know, on the south side of the street?

Yes.

Okay.

So I'm just trying to understand uh because what we see in this drawing is the is the is existing home that's to be removed, I believe.

So I'm just trying to understand what is the prevailing setback on this, you know, if you if you draw a line like across the existing houses and average where where they are.

How does how does that line repres uh compare to exactly what with the new proposed um uh construction?

Right.

So um, if you can go to page five.

I have a perspective drawing from the street, and that bottom one, if you can zoom in, please.

I have a tape measure going to the that's 20 foot from the sidewalk.

It's I'm sorry, it's very small, so if you can see it on the iPad, but that is showing where that um frontmost wall would be.

For the porch?

No, that would be for the um actual living wall.

And then the front porch would be another five, six feet.

But the front porch will be where basically the front porch is now.

But the um my question is I guess part of what the other s some of the other speakers who talked about a deeper setback on this block face on this side of the street, like the whether either to the porch or to the front mask.

This is a not contributing home.

The way the ordinance is written is we're looking at the contributing homes and what that prevailing setback is.

And is that that's what you would have is slightly deeper per your spreadsheet.

Like your your there's 20 feet when in this recommendation, but I think that number was around 24 or for that side?

Yeah, the south side is deeper, but based on all the rules, it's a context area.

So we created an average, right?

The north side was 10 foot, the south side was 26, 25-ish.

We came up with the average to kind of fit what makes sense because to his point, yeah, larger lots you can you can push your house.

I mean, River Oaks is a hundred feet back.

These these lots are pretty big.

This one is still a large lot.

Um they're not town homes.

These are these are single family homes for families.

Um we think the average of the 20 foot is a very good compromise for everyone.

Averages out 25.6.

Yeah, and then the contributing houses on that side were 26.66.

The existing house is non-contributing because it's been altered beyond but but it does it i it is an old house that has clad in brick.

And so one could assume that it's in its original position on the site.

The I mean, yes.

Where is it?

And so that setback, the existing setback is what a little is 23 something.

I can't read it's highlighted, so I can't.

I think the front wall of the house is around 20 feet.

The existing.

So this house was already.

I mean, if we're making the assumption that it was in the footprint where it was built, it was already projected the closer to the city.

I'm just trying to clarify that this house is old and not likely was not moved forward at some point.

Right.

So to looking to the survey of the existing house to the front wall, one side is 236 and the other is 239.

And then to the porch.

14.8.

14.8, that sounds.

And then draw and have context area.

Sorry, I have a lot of tabs in here.

The um no page where it has the totals.

I think it's 13.

Oh no, wait, no, I didn't zoom in that one.

I want everyone to understand.

I am trying to compromise with everything.

I mean, even last week I think you guys signed off on something to put in wood cloud windows when I've seen a couple recently that were vinyl.

I'm spending double the money for wood cloud windows.

I want to do I want to make everyone happy.

I want to do what's right.

Um but the setbacks, this is uh this is something we worked on a long time to create these averages to on the replat process involved into it.

Yeah, I guess my question for uh our deputy director is that um I know that the replotting process is a different process from this commission, and I know generically uh there are many minimal building setbacks for carports and garage doors and fronts of homes, but those dimensions um don't apply to stork properties, which the prevailing setbacks again is what is what um overrides those minimums.

Um in this case, um we have this you this is a use that is not common because I I can't I I don't recall before seeing these blocks broken in half.

Um I think that the side street is a different type of street than the than the more front street that has more garage facing is more like a service street, it appears.

It it the character on the side is different than the front, let's say for this subject lot.

Um with the caveat that whatever the original house was before it was modified also appeared to be slightly further closer to the sidewalk even when it went even on the sandboard.

So um, but can you just uh advise us on because my understanding is still the prevailing setback or or the a common a common um dimension of what the the contributing structures were is how we've always used this to create that metric to draw to draw a line.

Um and we're not subject to the lines of the plat.

That's I guess that's my question.

Because I'm not sure what drove the plat dimension from Harris County.

Yeah, the planning commission that the the platts that's just based on regular Houston code.

And I don't know um I mean I'd have to look to legal to know which trumps which I've always understood it's the for stork properties, it's the prevailing storic setback is what and and often like for many properties, it's the it's the setback on that on which you align is is is of great consequence.

So I was just trying to, but but there is precedent for this lot that the structure on per the sandborn was a little bit closer to the to the street than the other homes on this face on the south-south side.

So it seems like that where that structure was built, it has some relevance to future development, even though what's there now may be a different iteration of that primary structure.

Document camera, please.

Chair Chair Busick, um I believe in uh on some of the the probably projects in my experience, uh the um the building setbacks or determined by the ordinance.

So if it's a historic ordinance or if it's a uh PC uh planning commission, planning commission ordinance, um that seemed to trump whatever the the plat had.

And just for reference, I uh just put on the document camera the um particular block face.

This is the 1924 sandboard.

So pretty it's pretty close.

Um it's slightly closer, but it looks like the bay projection on the front is what is is sticking forward of the main port line of porches.

Commissioner Blake, you had a question.

I'm not sure who can answer this question, but I found very compelling the point made by one of the speakers that the homes in this neighborhood have uh detached garages toward the back of the lot.

Because that is seems to me to actually it to be a kind of design decision that it has something to do with the character of the neighborhood.

I think it's interesting to think of this as an urban uh approach uh versus the attached garage being a suburban uh approach.

I'm not sure how far that goes, but I do notice that most of the other houses on these blocks have this sort of separate structure near the back of the lot, and the cars are then pulled back.

So that seems to it is a kind of potentially compelling aesthetic issue.

But what I guess my question is that is that in design guidelines somewhere, or is that part of the definition of this neighborhood in a way that could be actionable for us, or is that something that really isn't addressed in the ordinance?

So I want to clarify something.

Not to my knowledge, the um design guidelines were never adopted by city council.

They were in draft mode.

And then so just for clarity, there are no guidelines to help answer your question.

I did consult with the staff on this project, and we looked at a lot of corner lots.

And there is some precedent, particularly along Watson, that we have approved a lot of additions where the garage is attached to the house and enters off of Watson Street.

I mean, so it's not an uncommon thing along Watson uh to see that arrangement.

That helps at all.

And yes, in the next uh item that we'll see, I do have that full context area of garages along Watson's, so got that.

On the sandboard map there, I don't think that's the same house outlined.

So that's in the inventory, the architectural type that is listed is altered brick bungalow.

It has been significantly altered since then.

Um, if you go to And that's why it's now a non-contributing structure, it can be removed.

Yes.

Yes.

Um page seven through uh presentation mode, please.

I have the full BLA information, and you can even see in 1965 um a smaller bungalow that is wood clad.

So, you know, this property has transitioned significantly over time.

So yes, the one that's on the sandboard map is not necessarily the one that is what's currently there.

Thank you.

Clarification.

Um the the average setback of the main structure of all the other homes on the same side of the block is 26 feet, correct, staff?

And what's and the applicant has put forward an application for 20 feet?

Those are 7500 square foot lots, though.

And that regarding I'm just asking about setback.

Contributing houses on that side of the street are at 26 feet, 26.66.

Okay, and the application is for 20, correct?

20 foot two and a half on that side of the street.

Okay.

And which is where the current now non-contributing house is sitting as well.

Understood.

Um second clarification is um I've heard slab on grade and peer on beam.

So which is it?

So it's a raised to staff, to staff, please.

It's a raised slab with the um lattice to give the impression that it is visually compatible to have a peer and beam.

Okay, so it's not actually.

So it's slab on grade, um, just a different style of slab on grade.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Uh I think it's a structural slab in order to be if it's elevated above the ground, it would be a structural slab.

Yes.

It will be two feet above ground.

Um it'll be exactly.

And just for clarity, that just means that it's uh thicker concrete, uh thicker rebar.

It it's it's made, it's not made to be supported by the ground, which is a slab on grade, not to be confused by structural slab on grade, which is another type of slab.

But um but the idea is it'll look like it's raised pure and beam, even though it's built differently, but from the street.

That that is the my understanding is what is being proposed.

That's the intention, yes.

But then to the point that was raised earlier about how it might behave in flooding conditions, the water can go under the house, right?

Did you do the pimping being probably pushed up to like a civil engineer because the pyramid beams do not do they don't make flooding better or worse, right?

There's different types of pure and beam, right?

You could some people do all concrete and then they stack it on top of that, which in the case of the same thing.

Um you shouldn't be counting the ground underneath as giving more permeable area.

That's how the civil calculations are performed at the city.

I think there's two things.

So a um you were proposing a structural slab, but it's elevated and it's filled with void forms or sugar sand underneath.

So in in a sense, there is no void.

They're applying a lattice to give the illusion of a peering beam.

So it it's it's a it's a traditional structural slab in that regard.

There is a slight air space under the slab, but you can't see that.

So that there is no heave.

I don't believe we're in a floodplain, though.

No flip.

So there's that's why there's not an issue with water getting under the house or not getting out of the house, because it's not in a floodplain, therefore there's no storage issue that that the neighbors would have to contend with.

Um we have allowed in the heights, we have allowed a few there have been a few of the applications like this that look like they're peering beam, but they're not peering beam.

I think all those past ones that the past architect was up here talking about, those are all the same exact foundation type.

So I was just trying to keep it the same.

I'm trying to I don't want to reinvent the wheel.

I'm just doing the same that everything's been approved by.

So um we need to find some action on this project, and the applicant has another project because the allot that he divided as a whole nother uh sim a similar structure, but it did is different.

And his context is different because it's it's the rear half of what was the a continuous lot.

So um you just for the repeat staff's recommendation, because uh we need to we need to find a motion on some action.

Uh and we need to then go through this same conversation on a very similar proposal for the adjacent lot.

Staff recommends approval.

Is there a motion that a commissioner would bring for for consideration?

I'll make a motion to deny the Okay, I have a motion to deny.

Is there a second to deny Okay?

I don't have a second.

Is there another motion?

Browning, I make a motion to approve staff recommends recommendation.

Okay.

All in favor?

Can we have discussion, please?

Yes, yep.

Um what concerns me the most about this application uh is the setback.

Um I appreciate the applicant's effort to try to reach an average setback in his application for what's on both sides of the street.

But when you're walking down a street in a historic district, um and the average setback is 26 feet and the high and the low, they're within just a couple feet of each other.

Something that has um anything more than just a couple of feet will be noticeable.

And it would be, in my opinion, a violation of the look and the feel and the spirit of that block.

And that gets to compatibility, which I realize for all of us on the commission, compatibility is a gray area, and we all have to have our own definition of what compatibility is.

And for me, when the setback is it of the structure that we're considering is larger than anything larger than about two and a half feet, I I'm telling you, you can notice the difference when you're walking down the street.

So I'll be a no vote, but and I would encourage other commissioners to join me for that reason.

Thank you.

I mean, typically, this is this is not typical either.

Usually if they roll one way on one side of the street, they roll the same way on the other side of the street.

So this is an outlier in that regard, but I do have a motion.

I do have a second.

Any other discussion before I call the vote?

Uh Blakely.

A question for staff, I guess.

Sorry, I know it's dragging on and on.

Um we try to be thorough and give everyone a chance to speak.

So I just wonder if um a design was explored that maintained the setback of the current uh non-contributing structure structure, or if that's like impossible, if that makes it impossible to put the house on the site.

So it was discussed.

Um when it came into trying to achieve what the applicant was trying to achieve, and then getting into all of the data we were trying to compromise, trying to see based on the available data, the available structures, the entire package of it.

What was going to make the most sense for a recommendation?

That's why we went with that 20-foot approval.

So to answer your question, no, there was not a design actually designed at that uh setback.

Um I can't speak to if it would work or not, since I have not seen it to review it.

Um, but based off of the available data that we have, um that's what we got.

If I'm a mouth if my dad, Commissioner uh Busick, yes.

The I I live a couple of blocks from Euclid, and um I commend staff for the for the effort that they make on this finding all this history and then and coming with a a common um control point, which is the main frame.

But if you walk down Euclid, you have four foot deep, four foot deep porches.

You have twelve foot deep porches or eight foot deep porches at least, um, and some maybe even more than that.

So it's it's I I uh Commissioner Broadbeck, I think your um as your concern is probably validated if it's if that control point is at the house.

But uh part of the character I think of Woodland of Woodland Hills is the entrances are the entrances and those um the porches.

And and I bet there are 10 different types of porches on 10 different style of porches, which all blend and are compatible with the historic flavor of that block.

So um I I think the compromise at 20 foot is is a little misleading if you're walking if your concern is the depth from the sidewalk.

I I think it's um it's hard to find uh a straight line on that block.

Can I add one more comment, please?

Uh Commissioner Blakely, um I was just informed that I completely forgot about this, but um they did try to do several iterations of the design to have that setback, but the only way that they were able to make it fit on that lot um was to completely rotate the orientation of the building, and then at that point it would have to be facing Watson, which is not what would be appropriate for that block.

So in an effort to maintain that Euclid front entrance, um that's how we got to this conclusion.

Okay.

I I really appreciate all the diligence on the developers' part and on your part.

Um I also want to say I appreciate uh the the neighbors for their uh caring about the neighborhood um and its characteristics.

And I I think finally I would say that at the end of the day we have contributing and non-contributing structures, and because I think the kind of critical mass of this block will be carried by those contributing structures, so I think I'm comfortable voting for approval.

Any other discussion?

All in favor of the motion to accept staff's recommendation.

Aye.

Okay, any opposed?

Nay.

So Hill Davis Cosgrove So what is what is our count?

Any and any abstentions?

Okay, that motion carries now.

We will start this conversation all over.

Um 2924 Watson Street.

Otherwise known as Deja Vu.

Do we need a second to breathe?

No.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission.

Staff person carry quickly.

I submit item B7 at 2924 Watson in Woodland Heights Historic District for your consideration.

The property includes a non-contributing 5,670 square foot interior lot facing Watson Street.

The site was approved for replot by the City Houston Planning Commission to subdivide the previously 11,325 square foot corner lot into two smaller parcels now addressed as 728 Euclid and 2924 Watson.

The applicant proposes to construct a new two-story wood frame, 3,960 square foot single family residence with a 508 square foot attached garage.

The design features a partial width front porch with square wood columns facing Watson.

The house will have smooth cementitious siding with a six-inch reveal as well as a board and batten detail throughout the second floor and the attached garage.

The maximum ridge height of the house will be 32 foot 2 inches with a 30 foot seven-foot ridge height of the attached garage.

The setback facing Watson will be 15 foot setback to the front porch and 20 foot to the frontmost wall.

And 33 foot seven inches to the garage.

The applicant has been working closely with staff on the proposed design and has made numerous revisions to the plans based on staff's feed feedback and consultation with HHC commissioners.

After much deliberation and consultation with the applicant, staff recommends a deferral in an effort to gain additional feedback from the commission on ways to improve the current design and satisfy the new construction criteria.

The application has received one letter of opposition for the current design from the public via preservation tracker and one via email, which I have already submitted for public records.

Chair and members of the commission, the applicant, Tony Monaco is here to speak on this item.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

This time open the public hearing and um Anthony Monaco, if you can please restate your name in the microphone for the record and address the commission for this um the the second lot.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Uh Anthony Monaco.

I think this one will be a little bit easier.

Um document camera, please.

To start this one is a different context area, right?

Since we are facing Watson.

So this is what the house will look like.

Just want to get everyone to see this.

The garage is pushed back past 50%.

Um it's not a massive piece.

That's what we worked on that quite a bit too.

We had five iterations of this also.

Getting the garage as back far as we can.

It's a 75-foot deep lot.

The garage is past 50%, which is again that's how these neighborhoods were built.

They were based on deed restrictions, deed restrictions, state garage needs to be 50% behind of the property, right?

So it's it, it's at 35 feet.

Um just to show also my goal is to compromise on on everything.

This was replatted.

The build line here is 15 foot and 20 foot.

There is no context area that states that there's a 20-foot, 26 foot.

This has nothing to do with the Euclid block.

Technically, I can go to 15 foot.

If I I mean, just based on context area from what I've talked to the um the district about, but I'm trying to I'm trying to make everyone happy, so I even push this one back to the 20-foot also and still adhered to kind of that same historic heights look.

Um I'm sure the main part will be about garage placement.

Again, we pushed it back.

That's why the rendering is so important to show that you won't be seeing the the garage as pushed forward.

Um as far as width of the house, again, this is a 75-foot wide lot.

There's not that many of them in the historic district, but there are some.

I went through every single lot in the historic district.

This is a perfect example, 501 Woodland Street.

You can look all this information up.

It's a 75-foot wide lot, and the house is 58 foot wide.

So we did fit that.

That is a contributing structure.

Uh height compatibility, probably not really a discussion either, still at the 32.

It's following all the rules there.

Um again, cross all visually significant elements, setback height, roof, formassing, foundation appearance, and garage location.

The project is fully compatible with historic development.

I found multiple homes in the historic district that have the carport over and then push back.

The garage is passed 50%.

We have the large um porches and uh material windows, all that are following the COA rules.

So that's all for now.

So the rebuttal process.

Thank you.

The next speaker signed up as Michael Graves.

Okay.

Okay, sure.

Now I am of a certain age, so I say to you second verse, same as the first.

A little bit louder, a little bit worse.

Um my name is Michael Graves.

I'm the president of the Woodland Heights Pacific Association.

I'll break into note that I live at 3304 Beauchamp Street.

My lot is 75 by 110.

And my garage is behind my house.

And I can park alongside my house.

Or I can park where my car can't be seen.

So I'm not going to read the same comments that I made earlier because they are effectively the same.

But the comment I made with respect to the forward position of the garage was the attached garage relative to this Watson property.

Attached garages are relatively anomalous in our neighborhood.

And um they do speak to a sort of a more of a Katie kind of a way of living, uh, which is not where we are.

So yeah, and that's about all I have to say, and thank you for the opportunity to say it.

Thank you.

Uh our next speaker is Melissa Sternsfeld.

Uh I'll keep this very brief.

Um the just to clarify, the folks on the south south side of 700 Euclid, our homes were all built by the original developer.

Um so we we all live in original homes to the neighborhood and original to the developer uh development.

Um I want to be clear though, what we're doing here today is a developer-bought property subject to restrictions, deed restrictions, and in a historic guideline, and minimum lot size.

There is nothing else that we could have done to protect the character and our investment.

We have invested not money, we're not trying to make money off of this.

We have invested with our lives.

My child went to Travis Elementary, she went to Hog, and she now goes to Carnegie.

All of us, we've all raised our families here.

We plan to die in our homes.

We love our homes.

We love our community.

And I appreciate the fact that new people want to move into the neighborhood, and I welcome them.

But what I don't appreciate is when developers come in and they don't have a homeowner.

They don't have someone who's trying to build a home.

What they're trying to do is make money.

And what they're making money off of is my investment in my property, all of my neighbors' investment in their property, their beautiful gardens, their beautiful home.

That's what they're trying to make money off of.

And so what we have is a developer who split a single lot into two plat, you replatted, and now he's complaining that he can't get a big enough house on those two lots.

That is not a problem that we cost.

So while I'm very sorry that Euclid pass, I do hope that you will not allow Watson a very busy corner that does not need another garage facing out onto it with traffic going in and out at a busy intersection.

So please vote against that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Adam Turner.

Hi, thank you uh again for letting me come up and speak.

My name is Adam Turner.

I'm just a neighbor down the street.

Um yeah, this is even a more egregious example of Ives house than the Euclid house was.

Um that garage attached and up to the front like that.

Um, they might have other examples of houses in the neighborhood that look like that.

Most of them were passed before the historic protections were put in place.

Um have been passed more recently than that, but we shouldn't be racing to the lowest common denominator, right?

We should be trying to ensure that we build houses that are most in line with the historic high lines that we can.

Um this is clearly an example of what not to build.

Um again, this is just not a uh house that fits in with the protected woodland heights area.

Um yeah, that's that's about what I have.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

The next speaker is Nick Williams.

Hello everyone.

Um I uh own the property right next door to this house.

I'm the only person within the historic district who owns property next door.

Uh I missed the the first um one.

I was at a meeting, apologies I didn't make it.

I was disappointed to hear that it passed.

Um I'm sure that was well uh those points were well covered, um, so I won't go over them again.

Um but I do think that there is one thing about this Watson house that is significantly different from the Euclid house, um, and that is the attached garage that is front facing specifically.

So the applicant um you know cited some examples in the application of other attached garages within the Woodland Heights neighborhood, but notably every single one of them is side facing.

The um Woodland Heights Historic District guidelines specifically say that front facing attached garages are not permitted.

To my knowledge, there is not a single example uh of any era of a an attached garage that is front facing.

And I don't believe there is to the applicant's knowledge either, because I think he probably would have posted an example of it if he did it.

So um I was glad that he you know cited the the deed restrictions because they also do say that.

Um points about setbacks.

I know uh you you you've all heard that before, but I I I think that this is just a different point, and hopefully is um compelling.

Thank you.

Is there any other member of the public here to speak on this item that has not signed up to speak?

Not hearing anyone, so um Mr.

Monaco, you have a uh opportunity to respond.

Uh Anthony Monaco, I want to say thanks to the neighbors for uh their comments, and uh, I would like to address all of those with all facts.

Uh again, this house is a little bit different than the Euclid one, so this might get a little bit different um argument here because I'd like to just stick the facts.

Everyone, everyone here, please.

Um to start.

The build line is 15 feet on this context area.

I'm going to 20.

Taco camera, please.

And stated that there's no front loading garages.

There's one example with the carport.

This is in Woodland Heights Storic District.

I drove every single lot in Historic Heights district.

I know what is true and what's not true.

He also stated that there is no front loading garages.

Here's example two.

I'm pushing mine all the way back halfway past.

Another example.

516 Woodland Street, front facing garage.

Contributing structure.

They're even doing a rehab on this one.

I think it's in the next um meeting that you guys have, I think, next month.

I saw someone submit it.

Um so I just want to push opinions and facts.

Things that were stated from neighbors, those were opinions.

They were not actually investigated, and they didn't take the time to go through the historic district and find that there are houses with front loading garages.

Again, I didn't even do a front loading garage, I pushed mine 50% back.

So the second point, when you talk about deed restrictions, you should do the research before you talk about them.

Because again, I I do kind of nerd with deed restrictions because I do a lot of development, and the deed restriction clearly state it has nothing to do with front loading.

It's 50% back on the property.

The property is 75 foot.

Theirs is 150, so that's why theirs is 150 divided by two.

First mine's 75, 75 divided by 2 is 35, and I pushed it behind that.

So I'm following all the rules here.

I know it's a little bit different circumstance, but I just want us to try to focus on what is wrong with it.

There's tons of garages that are attached, and there's tons that are pushed back 50 percent in carport situation.

Thanks.

I have a other extensive list.

I can add that too if you want.

But I mean, I would say that this is these are examples, it's proof.

I'm not lying.

Anyone here can drive to these properties and show that this is this is a fact.

These are an opinion.

So I took the time to do the research.

I hope you guys appreciate that and we'll take that into consideration rather than I get there is a lot of emotion with neighbors, but I mean it's the minimum loss size.

Is a very large lot.

There's not a lot of people.

I know I can't afford that.

Most people can't.

I had to split the lot to make it affordable.

Maybe pre-COVID days, a large lot in one house was affordable, but the way the world's going now, it's not affordable to do one house on it, it has to be two.

Whilst it's not town homes, there's still big homes.

They're still 1.5 million dollars.

I'd say affordable relative for Woodland Heights, right?

Where these are different neighborhoods, right?

So yes, this is I think I presented all the facts.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Uh Commissioner Hill.

I'm looking on, I have a couple questions on the site plan.

It doesn't appear that the garage is halfway back.

Presentation mode, please.

Should be at 35 feet.

A lot of 75.

So the garage, right?

That's why I was showing the example.

Right.

So 37 and a half feet.

The actual garage part?

Following the garage building line part is past halfway of the lot.

The 50% mark.

That's that's the car.

It's about six feet of the car port, and then the actual garage right there.

So 28 feet eleven inches plus five and a half feet.

Correct.

Correct.

And that was this was our fifth arrow.

We kept pushing it back and back.

Because I first found these examples, thought we could do it forward.

So with the recommendations, I kept pushing it back and back and back to make it here, and that's why the running is a very good thing to show.

Okay.

And is can we also put the second floor plan up on the screen?

Is it three?

So the on the second floor, is that a porch?

50%, right?

So like in front of the garage door on the second floor.

Um the upper the second floor wall aligns with the garage door below.

Uh we need to go to the side elevation of that.

That's trying to understand where the garage is and where the front is where that looks like that second floor bedroom.

That goes kind of straight down, right?

And then that dotted line is the car port that'll go over it.

Trying to emulate some of those.

Can you go to page 15 the north elevation left?

Um it kind of gets lost with the board and batten, but that bottom um elevation that shows where that second floor is.

Yes, it's all the way back there.

Is there a mouse that you can show?

It's kind of hard because all the vertical siding right there.

Yeah, that's what the actual garage is back there.

Um, it's twenty twenty foot back from the actual front porch.

Thank you, sir.

Yeah.

Uh we'll let you know if you have a question.

But um so Kara, my question is does that's recommendation for this project though was deferral.

And I think that um you all um discussed trying to push the garage to the back of the of the lot.

Um there's sort of the there's some development.

I mean, there's there's some areas that have been developed behind the garage, which is for why it's pushed forward, I I believe you my understanding is that you also looked at trying to separate the garage or separate the garage in appearance, that that is to say, to create some type of residual space between the garage and the and the uh primary house, even if at some point they actually connect, but if that connection is further back.

I understand there are garages facing the street because the regular larger lots are um on a corner had side-facing garages.

Um in theory, those larger lots though had a lot smaller massing behind them because they were detached garages, and so this massing is atypical of the rear of the what would have been a hundred and fifty-foot lot because this again is an outlier now that it's been subdivided into two lots.

And so it's a very wide house also.

I guess for any of the other houses, at least the ones that we've been looking at in the context area in the previous project, or as we turn the corner, because it's running the houses as almost as wide as the lot is wide.

Uh so this has a lot going on, and I understand I think that's why your recognition is deferral.

If is there are there other uh aspects to the commission should be aware of in the discussions you've had.

Yeah, so um we discussed doing deferral just so that way you know we could come to the commission and allow for all sorts of conversation to take place about how we can advise the applicant to modify the design that might be a little bit more in keeping.

Um rather than just straight up deny it because he has been working so closely with us.

Um it was more so just the availability of time.

Um we felt that we took this as far as we could with the current design as far as our um reviews that we had.

Um I also pulled in commissioners to discuss.

Um it's a very unique situation that hasn't happened before, so we want to make sure that um all avenues are uh explored with this one.

Some of the other things that we discussed about this are the length of the front facade, uh making the garage appear either detached or shorter along with that ridge height of the garage.

Placement of the garage, we discussed moving it farther towards uh the back of the lot um, or I think even swapping it to the other side of it so that way it's closer to the very edge of the district.

Um then, but I think there's a tree there, so I don't think we could do that.

Simplifying the fenestration patterns.

Um more so just wanted this to be a conversation rather than putting a bunch of um conditions on it that might get too much into us designing it.

Um so that's kind of can you also give us some um additional description of the block face now that we're on because now we're on a side street for some of these uh uh for some of these properties, and and the other side is um maybe facing the street, but they are smaller lots and they have it so they have a different relationship and scale.

Um so I looked at this a few different ways.

Uh page eight, if you'll go to that one.

Um this is uh showing that it's just specifically Watson, and then I showed um how on the next page it's going to be oriented.

Um this I went down um and showed every garage pretty much that was on there, and um for the most part there you know aren't any that look exactly like this.

So that's why we expanded to the rest of the district just to see what the um commonality of this was.

So um it's very unique.

Um there wouldn't necessarily be anything else that's like this, but that's why we're coming to you all to try to get as much feedback as we can so that way it can be improved.

Thank you.

And uh Commissioner Blackie.

Uh I think for you or for one of you.

Um what is it does the HAHC ever review like developments like you know, like multi- multi-house developments?

And if so, is there like a threshold, you know, because uh basically this is a multi-house development, yet we're being asked to look at it as two individual houses.

Um I think part of the the sort of townhouse vibe of the project has to do with what end up being these kind of four dormers when you put them together that really like do seem like a massive intervention of something alien.

But you know, is this is this not is this a single family house or is it part of a multi-house development and should be able to do that?

No, but per code, these are standalone single family houses.

They're separately platted lots.

They're that have no common walls, so they're completely separate structures and should be viewed completely separately.

I had a few questions if that's okay.

Please um for staff, what I think I heard you just say is that while there may be examples in the subject area of front-facing garages, you could not find any front-facing attached garages.

Is that a true statement?

No.

Um to what page is that?

And I think the question is specific to contributing.

So like again, the sandborn is really the the, even though there's been modifications, the sandborne is the our only true guide to know what contributing footprint or or layout appeared.

Because the difference between a front-facing detached garage and a front-facing attached garage is a massive difference.

So I just need to know are there other examples in the neighborhood of a front-facing attached garage?

I do not think there are.

Then no, if that's the case.

Okay, there are not.

All right.

I thought you were meaning attached contributing garages.

There are attached garages to contributing houses on Watson, but in this same in this exact scenario, no, there aren't.

Okay.

Um this application is also slab on grade, correct?

Um it's the same scenario as the other one where it is the slab with the little bit of um what do you call it with the sand it's with the lattice across the road?

It's elevated and it has um ladders to make it appear to be uh a void under the house, but there is no void.

So a thicker slab.

Okay.

Um it's raised, basically.

Right.

It's a raised slab.

So then to that end, can staff tell me what the percentage of the impervious area on the lot is today, and what the percentage of the impervious area of the lot would be should both of these applications be approved afterwards.

I do not have that information.

Do you with that?

So, under 65% in purpose coverage, we're significantly under that.

Do you have the I just want to know what the impervious is today and then what it would be if both of these applications were approved?

I don't have that on me right now.

There are two separate applications though, right?

That one's approved and then this one is separate.

But we're still trying to stay under the 65% rule.

That is also why everyone brought up the comments about flooding and covering and perfect coverage.

When you put the garage even further back, half your lot is driveway.

So my knowledge driveway is not permeable.

Um I know they don't count sometimes, but like trying to avoid too much too much road like that.

So I think it's we have it in the submittal of the total coverage now.

Do you have it?

I think it's like 45% coverage.

Currently is 45 percent.

Currently, I think I don't want to say currently, because they're two separate lots right now.

Right now there's a structure, there's a metal structure out there.

I gotta just get the dimensions of it.

I mean, I can if you give me a sec, I'll do the map.

Sure.

Where I'm going is that there could very well be a drainage issue if both applications were approved.

I speak from first hand experience that um slab on grade will not allow drainage.

Uh and it can create new problems for the immediately immediate neighbors um around it.

And what concerns me about these two applications in combination is that you're taking you're demolishing an existing small structure, splitting into two lots, and then you're putting two much larger structures on those lots, both of which are slab on grade.

I I'm I'm not a drainage expert, but using logic, there's gonna be drainage issues.

But may I speak?

Please.

Uh that's one of the things in platting that's reviewed, is it does go through flood.

So they would not have allowed the subdivision of the lot if that uh in somehow impacted flood and cre and enhanced a flood situation.

So it's an irrelevant point of view for this.

These are two separate two separate lots, fully platted, fully entitled.

So flood, and they've already been vetted for flood.

Respectfully, in reality, logic tells me there's going to be drainage issues, respectfully.

Um my last question uh for staff would be are you aware of any effort that was made between uh the the builder and the owner to meet with neighbors to try to collaborate on this?

Did that did that occur?

Multiple times.

I am here behind me that yes, it did occur.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Yeah, I want to throw out that multiple times.

I gave my phone number to everyone at the last meeting.

He has my phone number for sure.

100% we exchanged messages.

There was a next door thread also by a one person in this room.

Someone said please reach out to him.

She stated on the record, screenshot, he can't pay my day rate.

So, Kara, can you repeat the staff's recommendation for this application?

Staff recommends deferral.

So um is there further questions of staff?

Is there a motion?

Motion to defer.

Okay.

Uh is there a second?

I've been second it.

Any discussion.

I'm just concerned that we won't see anything different when it comes back if we simply defer.

I think I have two concerns.

Please.

I mean the garage is an issue for me.

It has been the whole time when I reviewed the plans earlier.

Umpability is the issue here.

It doesn't matter that it faces Watson.

The issue for me is that the contributing structures have garages usually detached at the rear corner.

I have the same issue with the property we had earlier on Bayland.

When you're pulling it forward, you're changing the context, which the contributing structures fit into the entire district.

So by pulling this forward, we're i it it just is a visually incompatible, and we have to compare it to it can be a product of its own time.

It can be different architecturally than contributing structures, but it still has to be compatible with them, and that is what the ordinance says.

And I just feel that if it's not at the rear corner of the lot, then we're failing the ordinance in that sense.

My other issue is that I understand they are two separate properties, but they are going to be built next to each other.

And you'll have double garage.

I mean, there was precedent for a front the Euclid property having an attached garage on the side street.

We see that in our with contributing homes.

So I understand that.

But now you're going to have garage, big driveway, a little bit of space between them, big driveway, and a garage that's too far forward.

And it it just the pattern of that.

I mean, I would much prefer to see the garage on the other side of the house so that there was less garage as you entered the historic district.

So that's my two cents.

Yeah.

Um I I appreciate the the pending motion.

Um I did vote for approval on the previous lot, and we can't consider the fact that this was a subdivided that is two independent structures.

I voted the way I did on that lot.

But instead of a deferral, I would uh I would ask Commissioner Broadback to consider a declination.

Um because I don't believe that this second structure, even in uh considered independently, meets the criteria and needs a complete redesign.

I would um I would I'm in agreement with Commissioner Browning's Commissioner Blakely.

Um I think that there are issues with compatibility with the the neighborhood.

That the strategy of filling the site with the house is not in keeping with the sort of mentality that sort of guided the other house designs.

Um I agree with Commissioner Cosgrove about the garage being next to that other garage, it just um but but for me that's also part of how similar these two houses are and how close together and how they're really gonna read like one intervention because they're so close together, and because they share motifs.

So what I might say it would need in order to be viable would be like like a very different appearance, like it should be different.

It shouldn't look like it's part of a development.

If it if it if we're not going to consider it as one, I think it should convince us that it is is is in its own way uh responding to the context.

Um so I too would support denying this this one.

Mr.

Chaircia.

I will rescind my motion to defer and make a motion to deny.

Commissioner Business.

Before we do that, can we get Commissioner Garcia?

Yes, what what um what's the difference between a denial and a deferral will will they have to come back?

With with would they be doing the same thing on on a denial with the deferral?

Would they have to start the process over again?

If they if we do a deferral, they do not have to start their application process all over.

They have the option to provide new uh revised drawings.

They also have the option of not revising their drawings.

But they don't have to resubmit.

I don't have to pay the application fee all over again and start start over.

If if we if there is a vote for denial and that that and that vote is successful, then it's denied.

They can't appeal, um, and that will be what it will be.

Um and then if they if, depending on what what happens, they would have to then start over and make a new application, pay a new fee, and do go through a whole application process again.

So deferral is much easier for the applicant to make changes, having gathered feedback from from which that's what's really been happening today.

Um that's why I think staff made the made the recommendation for deferral.

It's then up to the applicant to consider what's been, you know, what's been said and what the community has said.

Um and it generally leads to a faster solution depending on the willingness to to find some uh happy medium.

Yes.

And if I may say like they are willing to work on it more like it's not like married to this particular design as it is.

So like there is still the applicant's advocate is willing to defer, is what you're saying.

Question Willing?

Yes.

Willing to defer to continue to work with staff on the design in order to find a solution that will meet the criteria, go with the district, make this a lot better for everyone.

So I think the deferral, if if the applicants willing, it's the easiest way for them to make changes and with this feedback, and then it's it's a more seamless process.

Um it just seems to me that um it's either gonna get approved or denied if the changes are not to what we believe should be to meet those uh minimum standards of the historic district.

So I I I I really believe we should um go with staff's recommendation.

Okay.

Well, uh what I would ask is could could we test the motion that we had we had a we had a motion and we had a second.

We didn't call a vote.

Um let's test that and see.

Um all in favor of deferral say aye.

Aye.

And uh any of uh opposed?

So I've got two or three.

I've got Browning and Blakely.

Any abstentions?

Okay, that motion passes.

We'll move on.

And we're now moving on to item 8907 Franklin Street.

Okay, I'm not wondering.

Yeah, no one's time to speak on that, but yes.

Um this is he's looking for B9.

He did submit a request to speak, um, but it was approved.

It was approved.

Yes.

Well, approved approved with conditions.

What conditions applicant?

You didn't use D9.

Should I go ahead and proceed with item B eight?

Are we good?

Let's proceed now with it with the two remaining, and then we can good afternoon, Chair, members of the commission.

The staff person care quigley.

I submit item B eight at 907 Franklin Street and Main Street Market Square Historic District for your consideration.

The property includes a contributing nine-story mixed-use neoclassical building constructed circa 1911 on a corner lot.

The applicant proposes to install new signage for the business, which occupies a street level corner unit, as well as awnings on the elevations facing Franklin and Travis.

The six-inch cabinet box sign is to be five foot by ten inches by three foot four inches, which is 19.44 square feet, mounted directly to the building wall.

The sign base is to be lit with white LED neon lights.

The aluminum frame awnings are to be mounted directly to the building wall with fabric canopy fixed over the framing to advertise the business logo.

The Southwest Elevation fronting Franklin will have three awnings, and the Northwest Elevation Printing Travis will have two awnings.

The proposed scope of work satisfied the criteria to be approved administratively, but was completed without HOP review and sign permits.

Staff recommends denial of a COA and issuance of a COR for work completed as submitted.

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

Thank you.

This time I open the public hearing.

Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak on this item you may approach the microphone and please re uh state your name in the microphone for the record?

Hello, I'm David Christian Hernandez, uh chef owner of the restaurant here at 907 Franklin.

Um apologize is my first time doing this, so I don't know all the uh traditions and all that.

Um yeah, we we hired someone to put up these awnings.

He and he informed us that he had all the necessary permits and inspections and everything.

Uh later on, we found out that he didn't have all of these.

Uh so we're going through this process just to remediate.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else here in the public to speak?

Seeing anyone um commission members or questions for staff.

My understanding is that um the work proceeded without approval, but that staff supports the work that was that it was at that was completed that uh had it come before the commission prior, your recognition would be approval.

And um, do you have anything else to add to that?

Yes.

It was um about to be approved administratively, and then we realized that it had already been completed.

So the process that we have to follow is if the work has already been completed, then we have to bring it before the commission.

Um it did satisfy the criteria, so um this is formality.

So the COR, the denial of COA since it's already been completed, so a COR now takes the place of a COA.

So it's accepting the work that has already been completed.

Thank you.

So is there a motion to accept staff's recommendation?

So moved.

So sorry, sorry, it was there a motion, yes, second.

Broadbreak, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, any abstentions?

Motion that motion passes.

We're now moving on to item number 10.

And yes, I mean, as as we're before we start this, I just want to know whether we need to reopen item number nine before um she's talking to him.

Is it I I don't want to waste your time, I'm sorry, but do you mind if we go and verify if he needs to pull it or not?

Well, I'm saying I think I think there's I think there's willingness.

I he signed up to speak, and it's the applicant, and I understood when I asked, did there's anyone here that does not agree with the recommendation?

I I don't recall that being a firm.

So in fairness to the applicant, if if he would like to have it reviewed, we could we could try to open that up after or now.

So after or now, if if now may I go and and um yeah we may be good at the end, but let him is it is it okay if we if he if he is heard now?

Is is does that is that legally okay?

Isn't we have to make a motion I don't think so because we it's the next item in line, so I think for we have to re-ope.

We need to make a motion to reopen it.

Mr.

Chair.

Motion for a three-minute recess so we can get that sorted out.

The rest of us can check our messages.

It's up to the commission.

Um we're c we're close to to finishing this meeting.

So I uh could proceed with the next items and and then consider this last item at the last time.

I'll send the motion.

Okay.

So can we go to item B9?

So I'll make a motion to open item B9 for discussion.

And I guess we will within its prior approval.

Second.

Second Garcia, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.

I'm SMATA Del Leon.

I wanted to go ahead and preface my uh my script by saying that there was uh my applicant is hard of hearing.

So, Commissioner or Chair Buchak, whenever you did ask if there was anyone who would like to speak on any of the other items, that was not hurt.

So, you know, out of good faith, since he's waited, we would like to, you know, allow the applicant to make his case for uh for his application.

So uh thank you.

The motion the item has been rescinded and it is now you're you're gonna get your chance.

So just I I'm gonna go ahead and speak first, sir.

Oh yeah, I speak first, and then I'll call you up.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chairperson, members of the commission.

This is staff person, Samantha De Leon.

I submit item B9 at 2611 Hopkins Street in the Avondale West Historic District for your consideration.

The two-story contributing American four square with craftsman craftsman if we would style property was built circa 1922, situated on a 16 uh six 6,500 square foot interior lot.

The applicant is proposing to replace two windows, one original wood window and one non-original vinyl window on the right side elevation, which is visible from the street with Simotron 6,500 win vinyl windows.

Staff received one letter of opposition, which is included in this report.

Staff recommends approval with conditions that the proposed right elevation uh windows be wood, wood clad, or wood composite with the final product to be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to installation.

Chairs and members of the commission, the owner, uh Mr.

Weller is here to answer any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Uh this time I'll open the public hearing.

Um Mr.

Weller, would you could you approach the microphone and state your your full name for the record and address the commission?

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Um my name is Renard Weller.

I live at 2611 Hopkins Street, and I've been there for about 23 years.

Uh whenever I first bought the property, uh there's bars right down the street and they were noisy as heck, and I didn't know what to do because I couldn't even live in my own house because it was so noisy.

So I got these windows, and unfortunately they were vinyl.

Um I got 20 of them to start with, and I needed 10 to complete the whole thing.

Well, I retired a couple of years ago, and I finally got some some cash, and I decided to finish the project.

Uh now six of the windows in the back don't matter because you say that the back of the house doesn't matter too much.

But the there's four windows.

I don't know where the two came from, and one being vinyl.

There's four windows.

There's two on the south side, and there's two on the north side.

Um one's a bathroom window that's about this big, and the others are fairly standard.

I don't know what standard is, but um let me see where I'm at here.

Um the windows that I did get were hurricane-proofed.

They were uh double paned xenon gas, all that noise.

Um so I I have a good uh in the in the front of my house, it stays warm in the back of my house, it's it it stays cool if it's winter.

Um some of the some of the uh shots you have here, those two up there, that's the two one two of the two in question, but there should be another.

Um there should be another um document camera, please.

Thank you.

The uh um whenever whenever I did put the the 20 windows in the front, I did put uh the accents, the uh craftsman accent accents to them, so it would join the community basically.

Um but see here, these are the two windows in question.

And to tell you the truth, if you saw all the other windows, you would you would think that those are the crappy ones because they kind of are because they're 102 years old right now.

Um extend.

Second.

I'll in favor, thank you.

One more minute.

Okay, cool.

Um let's see.

Um Jasmine over here mentioned something b about flexibility on the rear of the house.

I I took that into account.

Um this is uh let's see.

And and somebody else else mentioned compatibility.

Well, if these four windows, two on each side of my house are different, that's not compatible.

And I know you know you you guys hate vinyl windows, but the 20 that I did put in were grandfathered.

Um you can see some of the gaps in some of those windows.

The windows are crappy, especially on the south side.

Uh there's gaps in them because the uh uh the lock mechanism it has wood rod in it, so you can't really even screw things into I had wasp in my house and I didn't know why.

And uh and I looked behind uh this curtain and there was this bat gap in the window.

You can uh there's a one there's a couple pictures here of this gap.

I don't know if again, I don't know if this means anything or not.

But there's a there's a gap up there coming.

I'll be quiet.

I I've been working on this since since June.

Right, so we're here.

I've been working on this since June, and uh I don't know why they should they should have done the back of my house already, but they or authorized just authorized the back of my house about two weeks ago.

And on the 15th, I think uh Home Depot is going to come in and and do the six windows in the back of the house.

But the other four are the ones in question, I guess.

So I hope you listen to what I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we may have some questions for staff.

Um that's fine.

Sorry.

So Samantha.

Staff person Samantha Delian, I just wanted to make a clarification because I know that Mr.

Weller went ahead and showed the left elevation of his house.

Cara, or if we can go back to the uh screen, please.

Right here is what was submitted from the uh the agent, Mr.

Tim Riley.

He's the permit runner.

If uh Kara, if you can scroll down.

We had multiple discussions on the windows that were submitted, and there is not even a photo that is included of the left elevation.

So those two left elevation windows that he just mentioned and brought a photo of are not included in this particular project.

So I did want to make that clarification.

I spoke to Tim Riley because as you know, we speak to the agent, the person who goes ahead and submits the application on the owner's behalf.

And that was never mentioned.

As you can see, he submitted the uh an application for, of course, the rear windows.

I let him know in November, even I think probably even before then, that the rear would be exempt and that he would be able to go ahead and get started on that.

So I'm not sure why Mr.

Weller had to wait, but I just did want to clarify that since this was what was included in the photos and in the scope of work, it is only these uh two sets of windows on the right elevation that are being considered.

But that was just what I wanted to preface.

Okay, so uh can you um can you define the the windows?

Uh, these are on the front facade?

So this is on the right side elevation.

So you right when you're looking at the house, it's on the right side or the driveway.

But but at the front of the toward the front of the house.

Towards the rear.

And if uh Kara, if you can go to the staff report, please.

I believe that there is a photo showing exactly where the where they are on page eight.

The one with the purple and the pink.

And the purple and the blue, yes, sir.

Yeah, or next one.

This one?

No, no, the next one, Kara.

Go down.

There we go.

If you were to go ahead and zoom in on the right corner on the right side, if you can just zoom in.

But that's of the same, it's just uh that's an overall picture of that detail that was on the previous page.

Correct.

Yes, this is just showing the location of them on the house.

And so the the windows that are original are Upstairs.

Upstairs.

Correct, yes, sir.

And um he mentioned there's some issues with distress and so on.

Is anyone looked at those windows in terms of the what are they repairable?

And what's the shape of them?

Are they beyond repair?

I mean, it's it's just so the applicant provided a photo which is located on page 10.

So if you just scroll down here.

There we go.

So it seems from the applicant's point of view that they are not repairable.

Staff did not go ahead and conduct a site visit over this.

Um from the conversation that I had with the agent, it seemed that they just wanted a yes or no answer on whether or not if they are able to change out these windows and that they really wanted the vinyl.

So the windows below these windows are not original.

Correct.

And those are vinyl, yes, sir.

And they'd like to replace them.

Correct, yes, sir, with more vinyl windows.

No.

No.

The four windows, two on the south, two on the north.

They're original to the house 1922.

The the one on the south, you're looking at one of them that's it's wood rotted right where the the mechanism is, and you can see the gaps in the front.

They might be fixable, I'm not sure.

But since the other 20 26 windows I have are going to be vinyl, and 20 of them already are, it seems to me like grandfathering these four would not be a horrible problem.

But I know you guys hate vinyl, so I don't know.

Um so Samantha, so if we go back to the image of the the two lower windows in the color coded That's fine.

So Page seven.

Are there are the are the blue in blue are the vinyl windows that are existing?

Correct.

Yes, yes.

And they predate or the are the are these grandfathered?

Correct, yes, sir.

So they're not part of the conversation, just the upper, the upper two, and the applicant is actually saying there's another two on the other side.

So from staff's point of view, vinyl windows are grandfathered in once they come out.

What vinyl is not supposed to go back in.

On the original contributing structure.

Correct, yes, sir.

Which is why these two windows are subject to you know being in front of you guys right now.

But but in practical purposes, there's actually another pair on the other side, it it turns out that this like so we should be considering however it was applied.

Correct, because the condition exists on the other side, and we should think about this together.

Correct.

I've only been in contact with Mr.

Riley.

He lives in Tennessee, so we accumulated primarily through a phone calls and through email uh as protocol with uh eight with staff communicating with agents because he submitted this application on Mr.

Weller's behalf.

So he's the only person I have spoken to.

I did take Mr.

And I did tell him that to go ahead and submit an application and things like that.

And Mr.

Tim Riley was the one who submitted the application.

So Mr.

Riley, as you can see in the photos that I showed, did not mention anything on the left elevation.

So again, that's out of scope for this project.

So we we sort of have it's a it's a di it's a different conversation than we normally have because we we have so much grandfathering going on.

Typically we would establish or have Peter staff go out to determine whether the windows are repairable, if they're not repairable, or it's it's there's a lot of repairs needed.

We would allow replacement, but because it's on the original structure and you you all had issued uh a statement on windows that will not allow vinyl windows because they're not they can't come inset and recessed, but other windows that that may not be wood are available.

So that is that would be an option.

Um it's also on the rear 25 percent of the of the of the of the side, which there is much more deference to change the window, but the catch 22 is you don't allow vinyl windows because they're not inside and recessed, but the entire house is rolling that way nonetheless, right?

Correct, yes, sir.

So that that's why this I think is is very different from any of the three ways that we look at look at this situation.

Correct.

Yes, because based off of the window policy that staff has uh went ahead and adopted, it's not up to us to make that decision.

So it seems like the commission could ask staff to go and look at the condition of the windows is one is one uh operation this commission can also consider the applicant's request.

That's the other that's I think those are the two steps that we have to step through at first glance.

That is correct, but if he wants to change the other windows, he's gonna have to come back in front of the commission.

Correct, yes, and I will have a conversation with Mr.

Riley on how that's so we could defer the application.

We could.

That is definitely an option.

Yes, sir, because this was complete news to me about the left elevation.

So I'd make a motion we defer it.

Second.

Any other discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed any any exemptions?

Motion is deferred.

Moving on to item 10.

7947 Rock Hill Street.

Two more.

Good evening, Chairperson and members of the commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha Delione.

I submit item B 10 at s at 7947 Rock Hill Street in the Glenbrook Valley Historic District for your consideration.

The one-story contributing traditional ranch style property was built circa 1965, situated on the 6,500 square foot interior lot.

On July 17th, 2025, the applicant applied for an electrical permit.

On July 22nd, 2025, the applicant received a three-in-one complaint for construction without a permit uh or a certificate of appropriateness.

The inspector observed that the front windows and the right side elevation have been replaced from aluminum windows to vinyl windows, and a red tag was issued.

The applicant applied for a certificate of appropriateness on October 22nd, 2025.

Staff received two letters of opposition, which are included in the report.

Staff recommends denial as the project does not satisfy crite uh not satisfy criteria one, three, four, nine, and ten, and issuance of an issuance of COR requiring the removal of paint from the from the brick, removal of the replaced vinyl windows, and reversion of inside aluminum windows, and to also add back the shutters on the right side window on the front elevation.

Chairs and members of the commission, the applicant is here available for any questions.

I am also available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Samantha.

Um I'm gonna open the public hearing at this time.

I do have a seeker uh signed up.

Um Jose Paul Sight.

And I apologize if I if I mispronounced your last name, I can't.

No, it's fine.

Good afternoon.

Uh could you reset your name for the record?

Yes, my name is Jose Ponte.

And um here representing my company.

I want to state on the record that I was hired in July.

So any work that was done before this.

Um I I was basically given the project like this.

And so I've already been in contact with Samantha, and we've already spoken and I just want to do the right thing and whatever you guys recommend, of course.

Um we want to pull the necessary permits and anything going forward to proceed.

That's all I have in mind.

Thank you.

So could I ask you a question then?

Are you um you support the recommendations from staff?

The only thing that I would say is uh there are other homes painted in the neighborhood.

That's one thing I can say.

And then about the vinyl windows.

I I guess I would have to agree, like to change them back to aluminum.

So that's it.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item?

Not seeing I'll close a public hearing.

Um any other questions of staff.

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

Second.

Who's the second?

Browning is second.

Um all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Moving on to uh our last item, item 12.

77 18 Glenbray Street.

Okay, good evening, everybody.

We're still here.

Um Charles Sadler, staff member.

Uh I submit uh good evening, Chairperson, Commission, and members of the public.

I submit for your consideration item B12718 Glenbray Street, which is lot one block 64 in Glenbrook Valley.

It's a single family residential, one-story brick veneer and wood board and batten siding on a 2,047 square foot lot.

I'm sorry, the living area is 2,000 uh 47 square feet on a 9,350 square foot lot.

It's a contributing mid-century modern ranch style circa 1959.

And the applicant is proposing quite a few things.

We've worked with them since the summer to revise and to communicate.

Um a recommended uh how we could recommend approval.

And so we're gonna start on the north elevation to replace three tall fixed windows that are very narrow.

The next is to replace the front door with a more appropriate uh front door, with that's where they have, I don't believe is original.

On the west elevation to replace two smaller windows with uh one over one single hung aluminum mill finish.

On the east, west, and south elevations to rip, replace existing wood, board and batten siding with wood or smooth sabmentitious board to match existing board and batten siding.

Repair, replace existing wood trim with wood or smooth cementitious board.

And uh remove brick extension wall, which is on the north elevation, and that extends uh basically uh east, I believe.

And so this is a recommendation with conditions and an approval with conditions, which is right, correct.

So that's what the applicant is proposing.

The approval with conditions is that the uh rough cut timber board and batten siding on the east, west, and south elevations may be repaired with in-kind material, and that they will retain the extension brick masonry wall on the north elevation that extends uh east.

And this concludes my presentation.

If I don't believe anyone signed up, and no one's left.

Um if you have any questions.

Um I do.

Okay, uh Mr.

Brown.

So I've got three quick questions.

Yes, sir.

The first, the proposal from Friday versus what is here.

Um the proposal for Friday says vinyl windows, this one says aluminum wind mill finish windows.

That's um aluminum mill finish is what's being proposed.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um the what is also missing is the Northeast Driveway addition from Friday to this proposal.

Is that in or out?

So that uh so both of those uh historic does not regulate driveways.

So we don't have any opinion on doing a driveway or not.

But what we do regulate is the wall, the brick wall that's attached to the house.

And so we don't approve that.

That's hugely important in Glenberg Valley.

That's a design element.

So is there a is there a driveway on the northeast corner under the current proposal versus Friday's proposal?

Uh there is.

So when that would get to permitting to other parts of the city approval that would be addressed.

That's not something we can consider.

Correct, right.

Okay.

Finally, those three windows.

The other front facing windows were all the diamond windows that are prevalent throughout Glenbrook Valley.

Um were those present when the home was designed in 65.

Oh, I believe so.

I think it's 1959 was when it was constructed.

And so we believe those are those Harlequin windows are original.

Okay.

Oh, I see what you mean.

Those three fixed were not.

Uh not to our knowledge, no.

It looks like those what's there is original.

And there's actually it's a single pane, I believe, and the glass is cracked.

So it's it does look like it's original.

Okay.

I appreciate that.

Do we need time to evaluate whether those three windows were initially the diamond diamond windows to ensure uh continuity with the neighborhood as that is a unique feature throughout those 1500 homes.

Good question.

So I I have visited with the building inspector with Pete Stockton, and I think I'm not sure maybe Terrence and another staff member, and so we determined that there are those three fixed windows are original.

Thank you.

So with with that um I mean I um I guess with that is there recommendation to accept staff's recommendation with conditions.

Um I'll make that motion.

Browning motions, is there second?

Second.

Broadback seconds, all in favor.

Aye.

Only opposed.

Any abstentions?

Motion passes.

Thank you.

We will move on to item C comments from the public.

Uh I think we've outlasted the public.

Um I will move on to um item D, the historic preservation officer's report.

As mean.

Thank you all for still being here.

Um good afternoon, Chairbuczek.

Good good evening, Chairbuchek, Commission members and the public.

I am staff person Yasmeen Arslan, and I am the interim preservation officer.

The public the public hearing to I know um Mr.

Williams already uh said that, but to say it again, the public hearing to present proposed landmarks, protected landmarks, and change of designation before City Council has been rescheduled for January 7, 2026.

We have two landmarks, four protected landmarks, and two change of designations.

If any members of the public wishes to comment on these items, please contact the city secretary's office no later than Monday, January 5th, 2026 at 3 p.m.

On November 12th, staff held a successful meeting with Norhill residents to discuss the Norhill Design Guidelines.

As of December 4th, those guidelines have now been posted for 30 days, and the comment period is now complete.

Staff has received several comments from residents that we will now begin to review and discuss um of for uh of those comments.

As we review the comments, we will also be working with HAHC to schedule a meeting time and date to discuss the design guidelines in depth for the HAHC public meeting.

More details to come.

A window internal policy has been posted to our website.

Staff is working on more internal policies as we believe that they will help serve the residents of historic districts better.

I want to um thank my our wonderful team for their hard work and dedication this year.

My appreciation also goes to our board and commissioners for their time and service.

Staff wishes commissioners and the public joyful holidays and a happy new year.

Closing, if you have questions, you can call the Houston Office of Preservation Hotline at 832-393-6556, or visit our website at HoustonPlanning.com.

This concludes my preservation officer's report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we are adjourned.