Is now 234.

Thursday.

One second.

Thursday, January 15, 2025.

Today's meeting of the 2026, yes, I forgot to change it on my sheet.

Thank you.

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

I am Chaired David Buchek.

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

The Chair is present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Smith.

Present.

Carl Smith, that is.

Commissioner Blakely.

Present.

Commissioner Escobar.

Present.

Commissioner Hill.

Present.

Commissioner Cosgrove is absent today.

Commissioner Seidel.

I'm here.

Commissioner Mark Smith.

Present.

Commissioner Browning.

Present.

Christian Broadbeck is not currently here.

Commissioner Garcia.

Present.

Commissioner Davis.

Present.

And Deputy Director Williamson.

Present.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

We will now move on.

We'll move on to the Chair's report.

I just want to call out the speaker rules for the meeting.

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

Meetings start a few minutes after the schedule 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.

The item is called before the item is called and turn it in to staff near the front door.

The speaker rules are found on the top portion of the speaker sign in form attached to the agenda.

Council member members speaking on an item are not timed.

Applicants have their allotted two minutes of time as well as rebuttals.

Non-applicants, general speakers, are allowed two minutes of time.

There is not an option for a rebuttal, even if you did not use your full two minutes.

So we're going to really need to compress your arguments within your two winded uh two-minute window, and we can make this meeting not last until the night.

With that, I will pass this on to Robert for the Director's Report.

Thank you, Chair Buchek.

Commissioners and members of the public, welcome.

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

For my report today, I've got several announcements.

First, I want to welcome everyone to the new year.

2025 was a very active year, and staff member Samantha DeLeon will provide a brief report highlighting our collective activity.

Second, after some delay, we finally presented last year's proposed landmarks and reclassifications for public comment at City Council yesterday.

There was no opposition to any of the eight properties up for consideration.

So shity council should formally vote on each of those applications next week.

I'd like to recognize Staff Member Kara Quigley and Emily Ardenon with Preservation Houston for their significant contributions to this effort.

Thank you both.

Third, we've drafted another internal policy regarding context area around the perimeter of our historic districts.

Similar to the new window policy we announced last year.

This one should make it easier for applicants, staff, and commissioners to define the most appropriate context area around the perimeter when historic district border includes only one side of the street or when the district boundary stops mid-block.

This new policy will be available by our next meeting.

We've also are working on a new siding policy based on the U.S.

Department of Interiors Preservation Brief No.

So that one we hope to have completed as well.

Fourth, the final draft of the Nor Hill Design Guidelines are being finalized for review by Commission.

This draft will include comments received at the November 12 neighborhood meeting, and we will send out a notice when that public meeting is scheduled.

Next, I'm going to start including in my monthly report the number of design review applications received and the number of administrative approvals that have been approved during each review cycle.

So that everyone gets an appreciation for the amount of staff time it takes to accomplish these tasks that don't come before this uh committee.

So far in 2026, we've held seven design reviews and it or I'm sorry, we've we've reviewed seven design applications and administratively approved eight COAs.

Well, seven design review applications doesn't sound like a lot.

Each application may have multiple meetings.

These meetings can either be in person in our office on site at the proposed property or virtually.

So they are a lot of work.

Finally, I would like to recognize again Kara Quigley, who has unfortunately for us tendered her resignation this week.

Cara has been with the city's historic preservation team for well over two years and has been a great contributor.

Her work ethic, dedication, and positive energy have contributed greatly to our team.

So thank you, Kara, and we wish you the best.

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.

We do not have a mayor's liaison liaison report today, so we will move on to the consideration of the December 11th, 2025 HAHC meeting minutes.

Commission members, have you had a chance to review the minutes?

If there are no uh comments, is there a motion to accept the minutes?

I make a motion to accept the minutes.

Okay.

Hill the motion.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

C.

Smith.

Carl Smith seconds.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

That motion passes.

We'll now move on to item uh agenda item number A, the 2025 end of the year C of A report.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha Delione.

I submit item A, the 2025 end of the year COA report.

Every year, the historic preservation staff gives a report on all of the COAs in a calendar year.

This presentation is an overview of all the COAs submitted for the 2025 year.

Next slide.

And slide after.

Thank you.

In 2025, staff reviewed 355 applications.

Of those 355, 154 or 39 percent were approved COAs by HAC.

Of those 100 of those 154, four were protected landmark nominations and two were landmark nominations.

Only 17 CURs were issued, which was 5 percent, and only six COAs were denied by HAC.

132 or 32 percent of uh of the 355 applications were approved AAs.

39 or 12 percent of applications were withdrawn, and staff also completed 54 design reviews.

Next slide, please.

We had applications for every single historic district except for three.

The top three historic district applications were from Houston Heights, which includes Houston Heights East, West, and South, Norhill, and Woodland Heights.

Next slide, please.

Of those 355 applications previously mentioned, 257 or 72 percent were for contributing properties, sixty-two or eighteen percent were for non-contributing properties, and thirty-six or ten percent were for landmarks slash protected landmarks that are not located in historic districts and therefore are not contributing or not or non-contributing.

Next slide, please.

The Commission reviewed 176 COAs, 154 or 88 percent were approved, sixteen or nine percent were deferred.

Only six or three percent were denied, and of the seven COAs of seven COAs were appealed, and only four were overturned.

Chairs and member chair and member of the commission, Chair and members of the Commission.

This concludes my presentation.

I am available for any questions.

Thank you, Samantha.

At this time, we will move on to the well, sorry, if there is any questions first.

Um with that, we will move on to item number B, the consideration and possible action on the following applications of for certificates of appropriateness, one or more items may be taken in one motion as consent items.

Terrence, I know we have a very long list of speakers sign up today for this meeting, so hopefully um everything is on consent, but um we'll we'll find out what holds.

Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners, and the public.

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

And those items are item B1, 919 Henderson Street, new construction in the old six ward historic district, recommendation approval with condition.

Item B2, 1225 Ashland, and alteration addition in the Houston Heights West Historic District Recommendation approval with conditions.

Item B4, 4620 Oak Ridge, alteration and addition and windows in the Nor Hill Historic District.

Recommendation approval.

Item B five 1334 Austin alteration addition and windows in the Houston Heights West Historic District Recommendation Approval.

Item B6 519 Balin Avenue Alteration Edition in the Woodland Heights Historic District Recommendation Approval.

Item B7 417 Highland Street Alteration Edition in the Woodland Heights Historic District Recommendation Approval.

Item B 8 727 Key Street Street Alteration Edition in the Nor Hill Historic District Recommendation Approval.

Item B9, 825 West Malewood, Alteration Edition in the Nor Hill Historic District.

Recommendation approval.

Item B 10, 825 Woodland Street, I mean Mailwood Street at a new construction of a garage and a carport in the Nor Hill Historic District.

Recommendation approval.

Item B 11 1016 Algreg Street Alteration slash other in the Nor Hill Historic District.

Recommendation approval.

Item B 12 700 Ucalus Street alteration addition in the Woodland Heights Historic District recommendation approval.

Item Birte 2611 Hopkins Street Alteration of Windows.

I'm sorry, I skipped one.

Item B 12700 Euclid in alteration addition in the Woodland Heights Historic District recommendation approval.

Item B 13 2611 Hopkins Street Alteration of Windows in the Avondale West Historic District recommendation approval.

And item B 14 1024 Arlington Street.

Alteration of siding or trim, doors, windows, porch, or balcony roof in the Houston Heights Historic District.

Approval of a COA and issuance of a COR.

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

Items proposed for individual consideration.

Therefore, are items B are is item B3?

We are here for any questions.

I guess there was a quicker way for me to do that, but you covered your basis.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

I did receive requests from Mr.

Davis deploy items 1, 7, and 8.

Commission members, are there any and two, okay?

Commission members, are there any other projects you would like to have reviewed individually?

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

Um four, six, nine, and twelve.

Okay.

Are there any other items?

Okay, so at this time I'm gonna open up the public hearing.

Um there are a lot of folks signed up to speak on items on the agenda.

Um if you are here for items number five, ten, eleven, thirteen, or fourteen, and you do not agree with the recommendation from staff and would like to have that item pulled, uh, this is uh your chance to step up to the microphone and just announce the project.

I see Virginia with your hand raised.

Number 10.

Is there anyone else in the room for an item that you don't agree with the staff's recommendation?

If you agree with the recommendation, then you don't say anything, it'll likely pass in the next few minutes.

Okay, so I'm gonna read the list that I have.

Um the final consent list is number 5, 1334 Alston Street, number 11, 1016 Algreg Street, number 13, 2611 Hopkins Street, and number 14, 1224 Arlington Street.

Terrence, you concur.

I'm sorry, yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Well, thank you, so I'll close the public hearing at this time.

Uh Commission members, is there a motion to accept this reduced list of five, 11, 13, and 14 for consent and the recommended approvals from staff?

So moved, Broadbeck.

Broadback moves and is present.

Is there a second?

Garcia Second.

Garcia Seconds.

All in favor?

I need opposed.

That motion passes.

And we'll move on to item one.

Um I'd like to announce that we have an affidavit for Commissioner Sidell to abstain from uh item B9 and item B 10.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the HHC.

This is Staff Person Terrence Jackson, and today I submit to you item B 1 at 919 Henderson Street.

The property includes a 100 by 100 quarter lot and currently contains a historic one-story house at 907 Henderson and a two-story brick storefront building at 915 Henderson.

The third historic building on the northern third of the lot was demolished in 2008 after suffering significant hurricane damage.

This certificate of appropriateness pertains to the now vacant area at the north at the northeast corner, 91919 Henderson, which is on the boundary of the district with non-contributing commercial properties across the street on both Henderson Street and Union Street.

Please see the staff report for photos.

The applicant is proposing a new construction to construct a commercial or residential 2,914 square foot structure with a 1,200 square foot footprint.

A first floor of 1,079 square feet and a second floor of 1,835 square feet, totaling 2,009.

To include the property is to include a 89 square feet 89 square foot of front porch and 712 square feet of carport to be constructed with the slab on grade foundation.

The structure is to be clad with brick and lab siding.

The maximum ridge height shall be 30 feet 4 inches with a 8 over 12 roof pitch.

They propose to construct this construct this structure with pair pits at the front inside elevations, install steel windows and storefronts and doors with transoms on the Union Street side and install steel windows and storefronts and doors on the Henderson Street elevation without transoms.

The maximum top plate shall be 22 feet 9 inches with an 11-foot first floor top plate.

Staff recommends approval with conditions that the Eve Heights be brought down to match the 27 feet as stated in the old six-ward design guidelines.

As a result, the ridge heights and parapet heights will decrease as well.

The rear setback to abide by the City of Houston code of three feet to five feet, a setback less than five feet with a less than five feet, shall have a firewall firewall per city code.

The applicant, their designer, and staff have worked tirelessly tirelessly to modify the first proposed submission and have finally agreed that the changes that were suggested by staff are appropriate for the old six ward design guidelines.

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

The owners are here for any questions as well.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Terrence.

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

I do have two speakers signed up for this item.

The first speaker is Kyle Hatcher, followed by Abigail Hatcher.

They they are just uh here for questions.

They are in support of the recommendation.

Okay.

Um is anyone else here in the audience here to speak on this item?

If so, please announce yourself and approach the microphone.

Not hearing anyone.

I'm going to close the public hearing.

Commission members, are there any questions of staff for this item?

Commissioner Davis.

Excuse me.

Okay.

Um I ask for this one to be polled because the COA presents this as either a commercial or residential building.

And I think the commission is well within our lane to ask whether east at least one of these options is a credible functional direction to go in.

Looked at as a commercial building, the drawings don't really show a path to ADA compliance.

The front door is a step up, so it cannot serve as an accessible public entrance.

The only plausible accessible route is through the carport, but the carport isn't actually detailed as an accessible space and route.

It's also doing double dirt double duty as the pass-through to the rear of the adjacent building, which is pretty awkward way to handle the ADA entry.

And even though we don't regulate parking numbers, we do have to think about how the site planning and entry sequences the shape and character of the block and how people actually experience this corner of the historic district.

On top of the fact of that, the first floor restroom doesn't read as ADA compliant.

And upstairs, the entire floor seems to rely on a single stair for commercial egress, which is hard to reconcile with the type of occupancies that are suggested by the layout.

The residential option doesn't really solve the problem.

It turns the same shell into an oversized, very specialized one bedroom with a golf simulator and a lot of open space, which is miles away from what is typically marketable in this neighborhood.

Starting from that kind of one-bedroom plan with an eye toward maybe it's commercial someday, means it's not truly working as either a normal house or straightforward commercial building, which can never be marketed as a commercial building unless substantial changes are made.

So whoever owns this building next is almost guaranteed to be gutting the interior to make it functional.

Thank you, Chair.

Do you have any comments on the comments made?

Uh sure.

Um first comment would probably be that we unfortunately don't regulate ADA use.

Um or use.

I mean, generically.

And um I'll say, and I don't want them to have to answer this because I've talked to them about this repeatedly, but um what the applicant was trying to achieve in this in this design was that they were trying to um design something that could either be commercial or residential, strictly based on the fact of its location.

Um the applicants also own the entire lot.

Um there are two residential structures on the property.

So don't want to speak for them, but I would assume that they're going to, if they put the properties up for sale, um, whoever chooses to purchase the properties will have a residence, well, two residences.

Well, you could probably call it three because one is a duplex, right?

You probably call it three residences and a business structure, which they can decide if they want to use it for commercial or if they want to use it for residential.

Um believe me, staff struggled with this for a couple of weeks trying to figure out okay, how are we going to look at this?

Are we going to review this as a residential construction or are we going to review this as a commercial construction?

Reason being is because there are two different architectural styles dealing with old six ward, right?

And then the fact that it is on the boundary of the context area.

Um I've made sure that I've gone by there several times and just taken pictures of uh the intersection of both Union Street and Henderson, so that way I could give you a feel of what you are looking at.

Across the street is non-contributing.

It's a business.

Um report, it's a black building with pink doors, and then across the street on Union Street is a pizzeria where you got a food truck that's parked there 24-7.

So I don't know how to address the ADA concern.

Um, but I do believe that that will be something that the permitting office will definitely address before they pass them through for approval from uh the permitting office.

And I hope that addressed all your questions.

I I'm sorry if I missed any.

Well, it turns out I had one question.

My understanding is part of this is because of the way that the six-word, old six ward guidelines are written.

Yes.

Can you just explain that nuance because as you said, we don't regulate use.

But there is some language in the guidelines which is it has come to bear, I think, on this.

Yes.

So there were some issues which, if you go to the end of the report, I've kind of highlighted the things that um I I put the NOR here, I mean, or Norhe, I'm sorry.

I've been dealing with the the guidelines so long.

Um the old six ward design guidelines towards the end of the report and highlighted everything that um was that pertained to this project and the things that you'll notice is that um it mentions commercial properties and it mentions that commercial property should have a parapet.

And the things that you'll notice is that it mentions commercial properties and it mentions that commercial property should have a parapet.

It mentions residential properties, and if a residence is large, then it should be clad in brick, because that's what most of the residential large residential properties in old six ward are clad in brick.

And then it talks about the peaks of the ridge.

It talks about the ridge height.

It talks about the Eve, which is why we mentioned the condition that a residents can't have a Eve higher than 27 feet.

So we've spoken with the owner, they're willing to make that change.

I mean, again, staff struggle with this a lot because of the old six ward design guidelines and the things that it mentions, but it doesn't necessarily focus on residential versus commercial.

So the way staff looked at it was we kindly called the applicant and said, Hey, how would you like us to review this?

They said, well, we would prefer that you review this as commercial, so we reviewed it as a commercial building.

Due to the fact of its locale being right on the boundary, and there is a contributing structure behind it, and I believe the two properties on the site as well are contributing.

That's the reason why we asked them to adjust the setbacks because the uh old six ward design guidelines say that um when you do a redesign or when you do new construction on a site, you need to match those setbacks that were previously there.

So staff didn't see one, we couldn't look at the ADA situation.

Um staff didn't look at the ADA situation, we didn't consider it.

Um we did consider commercial versus residential, but once we had a few conversations, we felt that that was uh that they were going down the right route once they made the changes to the project that we asked.

And uh, yeah, that's kind of where how we got here.

So um I guess my question again back to this issue with the guidelines.

Um we don't regulate use.

No, sir.

Uh staff has reviewed this project um as it as a a commercial appearing structure.

Yes.

Um my question, I guess, for the guidelines is can a structure um be created to look like a commercial structure but used as a residential structure per the guidelines?

I do not see anything in the guidelines that that makes that statement or says that you can or cannot do as such.

I will say that there are houses in old six ward that are used as commercial properties, like law firms or that much that so on and so forth, like you would see in the heights.

So but there's also commercial buildings used as houses as well.

100 percent.

There was a applicant that came, I want to say in 2024 that purchased a commercial property and he transferred it, transformed it into his how his home.

And I mean I it might be a picture of it in in the uh actual report.

But yeah, so there this commission can't regulate that.

We can't regulate that, but uh, you know, I'm pretty sure the ADA issues will be addressed once it goes to permitting, though I can almost assure you of that.

Right.

So if it if if they if they pull up commercial permit, then that's going to be required for spending more than $50,000.

Oh, and one more thing.

Thanks for saying that.

So I want to address one more thing that you said, so I missed that.

Um because it is a 25-foot lot, um, they are allowed to use the street for parking.

Um so that was one of the other things in the guidelines that we took a look at.

Um so uh with that, they can park on union, they can park on Henderson if it does become a per commercial property, and I think they'll have plenty of parking, especially based on what they have on the lot in um on the property behind the duplex and behind the contributing structure.

So I honestly believe that they have ample parking for a commercial property, especially with the size of it being uh slightly under 3,000 square feet, they're not gonna be able to, you know, fit the whole city of Houston in the in the building.

So I think they'll be fine as far as uh commercial or residential.

So it it seems to me that the applicants are going to make a decision when they go to permit on what kind of permit they're gonna pull.

Yes, 100 percent.

And that's the reason why I put both floor plans in the report so that they won't have an issue as far as when they're when they're trying to get their COA, whichever they submit, we can go ahead and stamp the plans and stamp the COA as according to whatever they choose to to use uh the property for.

Okay.

So as I see it, um in theory, this could be used as commercial, it could be used as residential, it could be used as commercial downstairs or residential upstairs, all of which have impacts internally but not are not subject to our review.

So uh really your request of the commission is to consider this as a uh on the exterior a shell of this this submission as a commercial uh structure to fit in with the existing commercial structures.

Um what was on the site before was a large box with a gable on this.

Uh this is a a box with a gable just in in a similar way that has sort of a porch element uh facing the street.

So they set they set the building back from the um front street a little bit, but whereas the old building was right on the right-of-way line, and I think there were some issues with easements.

Um, yes, there were with the previous building there were a number of issues with the easements.

Um that's a thing in O6 Ward.

I mean, while I was walking it there, other properties that way as well.

Um I'll also state that um the applicants did do a uh I would think they did an excellent job at trying to um make it appear the same as the property that was originally there.

Um yes, it's not clad in what that one was clad in, and this one is clad in brick, but I think that's because of the locale and the buildings that are surrounding it.

Thank you, Commissioner members.

Are there any questions of staff on this item?

Um Gersia, just one quick question.

Um I think North Street and the report North Street and South Street or five foot setbacks for corner lots were the were the setbacks confirmed on the um on this project, assuming that the um front is designated as um Henderson?

Yes.

Yes.

So they so um the architect or the designer um did a great job of doing all that research previously, and um he set it back.

It's it's set back.

I don't know if you can see it on the site plan, but it's set back from where the original property was and it's set back behind where the contributing duplex is.

So they made sure that they met those setbacks, and that was one of the first things that um the applicants discussed with me about was that that's the reason why it was set back a little bit further than the previous original property.

So just to confirm it's five foot, five foot and five foot.

Uh it looks, it looks, it appears that um the reason it was offset on one side was the visibility triangle.

Um it's just unusual to have a five foot setback on a corner lot for both for both front and side.

Yeah.

So on Henderson, um, which uh forgive me, maybe I should have done that, but on Henderson Street, if you were to stand um right on the corner, all of the houses are literally not all of them, but the majority of the houses, even the there's a picture of a business uh I believe it's called Henderson and Kane, it's a barbecue joint or a barbecue spot.

Um but it's like five foot, it's literally right after the sidewalk.

So um the majority of properties on this side of Henderson are right on that five-foot property line.

Um there's even one property, um, this probably has nothing to do about anything, but there's even one property that's um that the Department of Neighborhoods has uh has placed some sort of placard on because they haven't taken care of the grass right there, right off of the sidewalk.

And you know, it's it just looks a mess.

And so I I um quite sure that they met the setbacks.

And if they didn't, then that will be something that we could absolutely change prior to permit permit submission.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions, staff?

If not, is there a motion?

I guess I'm I just want to sort of make a statement that I I find it a little bit I first of all, I really can see that you've done a ton of work, staff, and I also really appreciate that the owners have been, as you say, so uh accommodating.

But I do find it a little bit troubling.

Um the sort of relationship of this project to criterion two.

Of being compatible with the uh features of existing structures in the context area.

Because I think that uh for a building that is residential to look like a residential building, and or for a building that's commercial to look like a commercial building, it's sort of part of the job in a way of of being compatible.

And in a way, I feel that there's a way that this project kind of gets gets around compatibility by a sort of piecemeal compatibility.

Well, the roof height is the same, well, the materials the same.

And just speaking from the perspective of design and thinking about architectural style, I just feel that that is not being uh particularly well served by the project, even though I think it's it's not going to be a disaster if it should be approved.

I guess I just want to make a sort of plea for a general consideration of that aspect of how a building expresses itself and expresses itself as belonging to a neighborhood.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um I listen as as someone who studied architecture and practice it for I'm probably dating myself, but over 20 something years.

Um, and I know I don't look that old, but um uh I struggled with that as well, and I think that is the reason why I ultimately made the call, even though we don't regulate use, that is the reason why I called the applicant and said, Hey, do you mind just settling on a particular use for this project so we can know how to review it?

I had a number of conversations with the preservation officer about okay.

I don't know, we don't know how we're gonna look at it, but uh and and after the final conversation, we came to a consensus that hey, let's just go ask the applicant which one would they prefer, right?

Um and I know that's a hard decision for them to make because um they have a a a huge lot that has two residential structures on it for them to try to determine what this is going to be before they even have anything built.

Um but when they seemingly committed to commercial, and I went back and looked at all the properties that are gonna be directly across the street, it kind of made sense with the way the design is.

Um but I agree, if it ends up being residential, that probably would be kind of weird for the person that lives there, or maybe even the residence, I don't know, but um we're kind of placed in but in them in between a rock and a hard place by not regulating use.

So again, once they kind of quasi committed to that, it became easier for us to review it as it is Commissioner Hill.

Uh I struggled a little bit with the compatibility factor too, and I think to me, the only place that this building could work in the neighborhood is where it is.

Correct.

Because if you look around, there's just so many different styles.

Uh you look at the the bar across the street, the black building, uh, even the fire station that's on the opposing corner, they're all very different.

But the mass seems to be there.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Is there a motion?

Uh Christina make a motion to approve um per staff um recommendations and conditions.

Second, Rodbeck.

Rodbeck seconds, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Blakely opposes.

Anyone else?

The motion passes.

And we'll move on to item number two.

I have a question.

Is anyone else hot?

Okay.

All right.

Thought it was just me.

Okay.

There's a heat lamp right above you to just know you.

No, no, you're good.

It's a little wild right now.

They can't find that's gonna help them.

I guess if they want it, you can turn it over there.

I'm good.

They're more important than me.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the HHC.

This is Staff Person Terrence Jackson.

I submit to you item B02 at 1225 Ashland Street.

A partially contributing L Plan Cottage style residence constructed circa 1910, located in the Houston Heights West Historic District.

The property includes a 984 square foot house and detached garage six situated on a 6600 square foot interior lot.

For the alteration slash two-story addition, the applicant is proposing to demolish approximately 220 square feet of a non-original addition at the rear of the house.

Demolish a portion of the non-original dish addition at the front of the home to increase the height of the ceiling in that area.

Construct an addition of 1,258 square feet on the first floor and 823 square feet on the second floor, bringing the total of the addition to 2,845 square feet.

The addition will be clad with smooth cementation siding with a reveal to match the existing existing.

The maximum ridge height shall be 30 feet to be construed and it shall be constructed with composition shingles.

The addition shall have a six over 12 roof pitch, a three over 12 cricket, and a nine over 12 roof pitch to match the existing.

And the plate height shall be nine feet to match the existing and nineteen foot six to uh with the match the max uh max plate height.

The existing windows are to be repaired as needed.

Staff recommends approval with conditions that the proposed that the proposed windows for the addition are to be wood or wood c wood clad windows instead and recess.

The proposed doors to be approved by stab prior to purchase or installation, and staff is to verify the condition of the existing siding and if it should be removed and replaced.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Chairman.

At this time, I will open the public hearing and ask if there's anyone here in the room that would like to speak on this item.

Please announce yourself and approach the microphone.

I do not have anyone signed up to speak on this item.

So not hearing anyone, I'm going to close the public hearing and open up questions from commission of staff on this item.

My question is about the windows on the addition.

We seem to have a number of styles of windows, and I think we're used to seeing just double hung windows as opposed to we've got a variety.

We've got um uh six over six, we've got on the then we've got double hung, we've got fixed position on the right-hand side.

You've got uh four light, um twelve light, double hung and more uh fixed window.

And I guess I'm just wondering whether that I guess I've not seen that approved on addition, that variety.

Okay.

So let me clarify that um I have spoken with the owner and the owner for has said that for the addition they're going to go with strictly one over one windows.

Um then um as far as the I believe it's like eight over eight or six over six windows, those are the existing windows, and those are to remain.

They just want to get those repaired.

Um the rest of the windows, except for the windows in the very back, will all be one over one.

Um that's what the uh the architect has agreed to because um they originally were planning to use vinyl windows, um, but we have a policy now that states that they cannot put vinyl windows in the addition, so they have agreed to do one over one wood or wood clad windows in the addition.

Great.

I just didn't see that question.

That was going to happen.

Thank you for asking.

Is that that's but that's one of your conditions that you well so um I because it doesn't say one, it doesn't strictly say one over one.

If you guys could say one over one in your uh motion, then we can get that added in and we'll understood.

Yeah.

Are there any other questions of staff from commission members?

Or is there a motion?

Motion to approve per staff recommendations with the addition of one over one windows.

On the addition on the addition.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

Broadback.

Broadback motions is there a second.

Second, C Smith.

Carl Smith seconds.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

And motion passes.

Thank you.

And we'll move on to item number three.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission.

This is staff person Kara Quigley.

I submit item B3 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 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 project was deferred on December 11th, 2025 HHC meeting.

Since then, the applicant and staff have been working closely to incorporate comments from the HHC, the public, and the Houston Office of Preservation.

A variation of architectural details present on contributing structures throughout the district were referenced to guide the new design.

The revised proposal before you today includes a new two-story 4,038 square foot wood frame craftsman influenced single-family residence with an attached two-story 562 square foot garage.

The design features a full-width front porch with tapered wood columns on brick bases throughout the first level.

The second level includes a shed dormer-like design with a side gable roof, as well as essentially located front-facing gable projection.

The attached two-story garage has a pyramid/slash hip roof with a lower cricket connection to differentiate the two structures.

The house will have smooth cementitious siding with a six-inch reveal as well as a board and batten detail on the second floor gable projection and the attached garage.

The maximum ridge height of the house will be 32-6 with a 31-foot ridge height of the attached garage.

The setback facing Watson will be 15 feet set back to the front porch, a range of 16 foot 6 inches to 20 foot 3 inches to the frontmost walls and 42 foot 6 inches to the face of the garage from the front property line.

Staff recommends approval.

As of 1 p.m.

today, the application received nine public comments via preservation tracker or by email.

Eight are included in the staff report, and one I have submitted for the record.

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

I'm also available for questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, I'll open the public hearing.

We do have two speakers signed up for this item.

The first uh as mentioned is Anthony Monaco.

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

This is my first one that I speak again after it.

Okay.

Anthony Monaco, uh, thanks for having me back here again.

Um so uh Kara hit pretty much all the main points here.

Um so I don't have as much to say on this one like last time, but yeah, we've been working non-stop since the last deferral.

I mean, pretty much every day over the holidays.

Um lots of meetings, calls, changes.

I think we're on our seventh revision at this point.

Um, but I'll just kind of break down some of the information from last time.

I use this again.

Document camera.

Go ahead.

Okay, I'll just try to get this thing.

Okay.

Um this is the original plat that was replitted, right?

15 foot build line, 19 foot garage, just not plotted.

Of course, we're pushed back a lot further than that.

Um there's the basic information on that one.

Again, the new lots 5670 square foot, 75 by 75 and a half.

Um this house, um, since we've been back and forth so many times, we're fully compliant with all historic rules.

The garage, again, deed restrictions are 50 percent.

I brought it to you guys last time at 50 percent.

Now I push the garage back as far as possible on this lot.

So it's at 42 and a half feet now back.

Um and actually, this this road, the right-of-way on this road is actually significantly larger than most.

Um so if you're actually from the street, you're at 60 plus feet from the start of that street, which is significantly further back, even than some of the houses on the north side of Euclid, as some people have talked about.

Um so the garage, I think, and then we also worked on changing the elevation to make it look distinctly like it was detached, um, which a lot of work went into that, changing the roof pitches, etc.

Um so garage placement is fully compliant now.

Uh ridge height again.

This is just one down the street.

This was at 34 ridge height.

We're at 32.

So fully compliant there.

Lot size and massing.

Again, we're we are good on lot size and massing.

A lot is wider.

Massing is a relative term because it's based on the width of the lot.

If you have a 200 foot wide lot, you're not going to put a 50-foot wide house.

It would just look weird.

Um, it's based on the lot, so um this is a lot that has the same width as ours that's in the historic district.

Uh, you can go buy this address if you would like 501 woodland, and it is 70 foot foot wide, also with similar front porch.

Mr.

Barker, we want to try to wrap this up as we can.

Uh, you will uh there's another speaker.

Okay, I think that is no opposition, so you will have time for rebuttal.

Got it.

So um, we just try to keep this meeting moving.

Got moving.

No problem.

Um yeah, fully compliant.

So any other questions, let me know.

I got more documents.

Okay, thank you.

I do have one of the speakers who was signed up to speak, which is uh Adrian Um I can't quite read the last name, but it uh is it Ruvia or Rubian?

Rufan.

Uh thank you for hearing me today.

Um I do we do appreciate all I know it's obvious from looking at the previous submissions and everything that there's been a lot of work done here, and we do all appreciate that.

I think you have nine uh people in, you know, filing uh in opinions on this, and I think the major problem is is that you know, we're living in the Woodland Heights, it's been deed restricted.

I know you you've considered that things to try to make it look like it's matching the old type of development.

But um there's still just issues that I'd like you to be aware of.

And I submitted this thing, which I you know, you've read my submission probably, so I don't need to really read all that again.

The main thing I wanted to point out was um the current plans proposed an increased house footprint, reducing the side offset from five feet to three feet, like originally I think it was at five feet on the plans.

And placing the roof overhang just one and a half feet from the lot line.

This crowding combined with the density of two houses on a previously single lot exacerbates existing congestion issues.

Um our area already faces significant safety hazards, hazards.

Police are currently ticketing and towing cars on the west side of the 700 block of Euclid near the four-way stop due to overcrowding and a history of accidents at that intersection.

Uh furthermore, Watson Street, where the House sits on, lacks available parking, creating a kind of a townhouse environment again that can contradicts the district's intent.

And we do appreciate that the garage was moved back, and the driveway theoretically is a bit longer.

But um there's really no there's no street parking there.

So they're gonna be trying to park on Euclid.

And the House on Euclid is gonna try to park on Euclid, et cetera.

Um can I take a few more minutes?

Is there a motion?

Just a minute, just a minute.

The other thing I wanted to do is get the more time.

We're we're being asked to to stick to the time.

So can you can you take one more point?

We we um okay.

I wanted to mention uh the uh Julie Um Moore, who is the uh director of deed restrictions for the Woodland Heights and also works with land use in the Houston Heights district, had submitted this to you too and asked that it be read here.

I wasn't gonna read it all, but I just wanted to say what she said about it.

We could ask staff to read the letter since it's in the public record.

Um pardon?

We could ask staff to read the but read her letter as a separate.

Um read this, it's in there as one of the just documents in the massive list of documents.

But she does have concerns, and she's mentioned actually the 519 bail-in property too, that's also on the agenda today.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So, Kira, I don't know if um I know sometimes we have we have had a letter read to us or if it came in late and it wasn't in the packet, but yours received.

Um I'm not sure this letter in question.

I think it's um if it was let me see.

It would have been in the packet.

Is it possible to just um bring the letter up on the screen so commission members can look in their um look on their screen so that would be uh page 25 of the packet?

Yes, on the screen right now.

So commission members are able to see the letter on their own screens and on page 25.

Yes.

And while while you're doing that, is there anyone else in the room that's here to speak on this item and has not signed up to speak on it?

Okay, not hearing anyone else, uh Mr.

Monaco, as I mentioned to you, you do have uh um a chance to for a rebuttal.

Um but we need to uh stick to the time.

I'll be quick.

Um I guess there wasn't as many speakers that time, but um yeah, I saw I already read through all those emails.

I'm fully compliant with all deed restrictions, the setbacks in that area, three foot and deed restrictions, the deed restrictions state 50 percent of the property.

Checked all the bar checked all the boxes on deed restrictions, so I would consider all that that message invalid.

So I don't think there's anything else for the slip.

Okay.

I think we're we're good to go.

Thank you.

Um I'll just ask if Commissioner Member, are there any questions of either the two speakers that we appeared before us for this item?

Okay, not hearing I would close the public hearing.

Uh Commissioner members, are there questions of staff on this item?

I know this this had a lot of um comments in our last meeting, um, especially about the um how similar it looked to the adjacent property that was approved on the corner.

Um there have been some efforts to change that uh some of the materials um the garage was slid back, it's still, but it is still a large massing on a very small lot because it has been subdivided.

So are there questions that you all have of staff?

Uh Commissioner Hill.

Uh I just have a comment that I agree with Ms.

Ruth and a couple of the other letters that this does.

We're we're not here to enforce deed restrictions, but this project does still violate quite a few of the guidelines.

Um specifically with the setback being less than 20 feet, the height being greater than 30 feet, um, slab on grade, the guidelines call for raised peer and beam.

And a couple other things.

Just wanted to agree.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions from other commissioner members on this item?

Commissioner Blakely.

I just wanted to respond to Commissioner Hill.

I believe we talked about the slab on grade issue last time, and it's it's not like strictly speaking.

I think it was found to be compliant with guidelines, if I recall correctly.

I think if well I can ask as staff.

I uh I seem to recall if it appears if it's a raised peer and beam structure, it was okay so that it didn't look like a slab on grade structure, which was the issue.

So I think that's how that issue was resolved.

But that's correct.

And then uh we also discussed the possibility of adding um like some sort of brick every now and then so that way it would resemble you know how a peer and beam actually were to look, but it would not be a real peer and beam.

So as a follow-up question uh to staff, and is Commissioner Hill correct that it's in violation on these other points of the ridge height and the setbacks?

And if not, what is the can you clarify that?

Yes, I can.

So um as far as the setbacks, it's the actual standard that is required for the setbacks in this area are 15 feet, um, which it does not go past.

The 20 feet that we had discussed at the previous meeting was based on the context area for Euclid specifically and the properties and their setbacks there.

So that's why we had decided on that one for that particular lot.

Um however, with this one with the placement, it's you know, the context area is a little bit different because Watson is um mostly, you know, garages or side entrances to garages.

It's not necessarily front facing, so that's why we um went to the rest of the district to look for inspiration for um a different architectural style, taking different details and such, and then those references we took you know the widths of those properties, we looked at the setbacks for those as well for interior lots with the front facing.

So the whole um discussion of that before, the same theory of study was applied to this one, but it is not the same 20-foot that was initially imposed on the Euclid property.

Does that make sense?

Or did I just ramble?

I think what you're saying is on the side street, the structures are closer to the right-of-way than on Euclid, which was more of a majestic street that had a look bigger setback on that aspect.

But I know they made some changes to differentiate this house from the other uh submission they made.

Um, although it's still uh you know, some things have been moved back.

The roof on the garage has been made to look more independent, although it's still conjoined.

Um materials on the front have been changed.

But it but the massing is still really pretty close to what it really was last time as well.

Yes.

So the whole way that we went about it this time is um, you know, it was very clear that following the last deferral that a redesign was needed in order to be completely different than the last project.

It needed to look like two separate individual properties, two different buildings.

And so, you know, we went through seven variations since December 18th until I believe the 8th of this month.

And so we gave feedback on how to improve the design, sought assistance from commissioners, and staff felt that the final version was the most appropriate design for the property.

And has incorporated different strategies to break up massing, such as the variation of roof lines with that side gable and the projections.

So a lot of attempts were made in order to make this work.

So that way the massing was reduced in a way that met as much of the criteria as we possibly could.

It's just a very unique situation.

And then the other, so in this, this is the overall roof plan you can see before and after.

And the only other thing I could say that also occurred was the area for that side yard pool, I guess was increased because the front to rear width of the on the right side of the massing is then reduced.

So I guess if you're looking at it from the right side of the like from the right of way from the right side of the structure, it doesn't go very back very deep before it turns in uh quite a lot.

So it's kind of a zigzag, I guess, now in plan.

But if I could just uh tag on uh this is Commissioner Blakely, because I was part of the design review conversation.

Um one of the major changes that was made has to do with the elevation, the front elevation and the section, sort of the front to the transverse section.

Um whereas the exist the December 11th design had these two gables that uh with the garage especially gave the impression of a kind of repetition reminiscent of row houses that I think that part of Watson Street already sort of tilts a little bit too far toward row houses for that neighborhood, uh given the contributing structures.

The revised design with its central gable gives more of the impression of a kind of unified volume uh from the elevation.

In addition, the way the space is organized inside internally in relation to the roof volumes is more in keeping with the craftsman sort of way of of designing buildings, or the craftsman approach to massing.

So underneath that long uh pitched roof in the main volume is one space.

And then the introduction of the cricket between the garage and the main house also uh articulates those volumes of the house into separate um and and see appear apparently somewhat smaller uh volumes.

So that was part of the conversation about how to bring that design, which really uh it seemed not to have much of a design.

It is a bit more into focus with some responsiveness to craftsman aesthetic details.

Thank you.

Any other questions of staff?

I think it's been brought up about the about the ridge height.

So we've done a lot of studies on setbacks, especially down Euclid for the previous one.

I think you had mentioned that there was a violation of the height.

Can you talk about that potential at all if it exists?

So as far as the height, it is not far off from the other one that was on approved this past commission.

Uh it is not out of line with the other properties in the area.

Um it does not exceed the tallest house that is in the area, the tallest contributing house.

So no, it does not violate that.

Is it also um shorter than the original submission from last month?

It is so the tallest ridge on there is technically four inches taller.

However, with the um differentiations of that um shed on the second level, the top of that one is 283.

And then the garage is at 31, which is seven in wait six inches taller than before.

Six inches taller than before.

So slightly different, but the massing is very different.

Yeah.

Are there any other questions of staff for this item?

If there are no other questions, is there a motion to accept staff's approval recommendation?

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

Okay.

So I know makes the motion.

Is there a second?

Curse is second.

Okay.

All any other discussion.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Opposed?

So Hill and Broadback oppose.

Okay, that motion passes.

We'll move on to the next item.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the commission.

This is Stafferson Kara Quigley.

I submit item B4 at 4620 Oak Ridge Street in Norhill Historic District for your consideration.

The property includes a contributing one-story wood frame bungalow constructed circa 1930 and a contributing detached one-story garage constructed circa 1940, located on a 5,000 square foot interior lot.

The applicant proposes a 717 square foot two-story addition at the rear bungalow, which will bring the total condition space to 1,939 square feet.

Additionally, non-original windows throughout the existing building will be replaced with new one over one wood windows.

On the south right elevation, two non-original windows will be removed and infilled with siding.

Staff recommends approval.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time I will open the public hearing.

We do have at least two speakers who have signed up to speak on this item.

The first is um Virginia Kelsey.

Sam, you get a rebuttal if you go first, but I mean if you go set if you go second, you you get you get one shot, so it's your you have to pick your poison.

Sam, Janukas Creole Design.

Uh we worked real hard with the staff to uh do the small addition to this house.

It's under 2,000 square feet.

Uh felt like it fits in real nicely.

We're more than 50 percent back on the original house.

And uh and uh there's nothing this was on the consent and got pulled.

Um so worked real hard with Karen, she helped a bunch.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Uh next speaker is Virginia Kelsey.

I'm Virginia Kelsey.

I'm the VP of Deed Restrictions for Norhill.

Document camera, please.

Um the mission of a and Cara, thank you for your service.

Hate to see you go.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh the mission of HAHC is to preserve Houston's historic character by reviewing applications and issuing COAs.

You are stewards to Houston's historical heritage.

The Norrhill Neighborhood Association shares the same mission.

We must approve submissions, quote, as to conform with the harmony of external designs.

The NA, after years of meeting with neighbors, the city polling, etc.

established guidelines, which largely follow the city's draft guidelines that define measurable standards for Nor Hill.

So no, the city guidelines have not been adopted, hopefully soon.

Um, but they do serve as a means for you that you can defer refer to even though you don't have to follow them.

I think they can still be a guide for all of us to follow.

I mean, ours are adopted.

4620 Oak Ridge mostly follows these guidelines, with two exceptions.

First, the rear setback for the second floor should be 11 inches further back to 19 feet, and the grade to second floor plate height should be reduced by eight inches.

And here is a mock-up.

Uh the first is to show you what the character of Norhill is.

It's largely this very low scale.

And the guidelines were set to allow for growth but keep with the scale.

Um there are 847 properties in Norr Hill.

Can you wrap up very quickly?

Yeah.

What we're asking is to reduce the height by eight inches to conform with the guidelines.

Okay.

Thank you.

And this shows eight-inch reduction on the right and the other height on the left.

Thank you, Virginia.

Sam, you do have a rebuttal.

Presentation mode, please.

Come up.

Sam, Janukas Creole Design.

We're at eight-foot plate height on the second floor.

And by the way, uh I followed the design guidelines that were submitted by the City of Houston to try to put these projects together in Norhill.

When I received those, I guess was in November, mid-Nov uh or December, maybe.

I thought, well, since I have these projects in Norhill, why not follow what are the proposed guidelines from City of Houston?

And that's what I did on these.

We have an eight-foot uh second floor plate height.

And we have a five and twelve pitch.

And I've been up here before complaining about equipment and getting your AC equipment and have an attic space.

And if we reduce that by eight inches, which I question whether anybody is going to notice eight inches, uh, it makes it really difficult to get the proper AC insulation and all of those items in that space.

And my client certainly doesn't want to do a ceiling less than eight feet.

Most of the time when the client does an eight-foot ceiling, we'll end up doing doing some pop-up ceilings and something to give them a little bit of height on the second floor.

So as much as if if if I were at an eight and twelve pitch on my second floor roof, or six and twelve even, I could I could reduce it by that eight inches, but very, very tough to do.

Um with with the configuration the way we have it, and and how high this this house is two feet off the ground, and and we're lining up uh first level floors and second level floors, and we're using 18-inch truss.

So it's just really tough to get it down eight inches.

I would love to do that, but there's we're with well within the design guidelines we were given to follow and and and um in the future.

If I'm you can call me, Virginia, if I'm off eight inches, I'm happy to try to work it out or talk to you about it.

Uh but it's tight.

It's really tight for for equipment.

Thank you, Sam.

Um before I close the public hearing, is anyone else in the audience here to speak on this item that did not sign up for it?

Not hearing, I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Are there any questions of staff on this item?

I know that the um proposed guidelines that the city put out are again are still not ratified.

There's a meeting coming up.

Um we do we do look forward to the day when we have um approved uh guidelines that we can we can use, but um but they do kind of foretell where we are we are going.

Um but to that end, are there other questions of staff for this?

I have a question for staff.

Um the the applicant stated that the possibility of an eight-foot ceiling on the second floor of the addition might be problematic.

So the question that I have for staff is can you tell me whether um you are aware or whether or not you understand or are aware of eight-foot ceilings on the second story of additions being common in that area?

Is it a thing?

Of having an eight-foot ceiling in that area or less than?

In in the in the subject area, are there other homes with second uh two-story additions where the ceilings on the second floor are eight feet?

I have not looked at those exact numbers for that, but I would assume based off of the scale and such that they are compliant as well.

Okay.

My understanding is that eight-foot ceilings on the on the second uh floor for two-story additions are pretty common in that area of town.

I I would assume that um, especially since these homes are scaled uh down uh from many of their neighbors and other you could ask a question of folks in the audience about know that question, but I think it's pretty many are eight feet, but this is also eight feet, right?

So I mean, so this is still the height of the the second floor is probably the most common height, I believe in Norhill that it is the same for for what is being um applied for.

Um I think that you know the biggest issues we face historically is that when you if you had a second two-story home, you probably had a two by ten or a two by twelve floor joist.

And if it was old enough, didn't have air conditioning uh uh today uh most people use trusses to span the distances you have to span with voids to get ductwork and wires and things through them, unless you invest in like uh steel channels, which makes it really um you have to design your ductwork around your structure.

Um it's a challenge on those heights, and so um, you know, one method I'll just say is still to have a eight foot have a plate height that you lower and then you um still have your ceiling at the at the height that you want.

So it's it there's sort of like a small um slope from the wall to the main ceiling, and you'll find that throughout much of River Oaks as well for a lot of the structures that were not overly large.

Um but I believe eight feet is a pretty standard uh height um any other questions of staff.

Is there a motion for staff or like to set staff recommendation or another or another motion?

I make a motion to approve.

Side hill seconds.

Okay, he'll make the motion.

Any other discussion?

All in favor?

I agree.

I agree.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Opposed.

Rodbeck opposes motion passes.

Thank you.

We'll move on to item number six.

Good afternoon, Chair Buchek and members of the commission.

My name is Yasmin Arslan.

Today I submit for your consideration agenda item B6 at 519 Bayland Avenue, lot twelve Woodland Heights subdivision.

The property includes a 1,627 square foot one-story wood frame single family residence and a one-story 128 square foot garage with a carport at the rear, situated on a 7,500 square foot interior lot.

519 Bayland is contributing Queen Inn residence constructed circa 1900 in the Woodland Heights Historic District.

This application was deferred by HAHC on December 11, 2025.

Staff along with Commissioner Cosgrove went on a site visit to see the property in person.

The applicant has since then revised the design according to HC's uh comments and feedback.

The applicant is now proposing to construct a 2,140 square foot two-story edition, adding 216 square foot to the first floor and 1,888 to the second, with an attached seven 711 square foot two-story garage.

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

The former dormer former proposed dormer on the west side elevation is now smaller from the previously proposed dormer last commission.

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 will be 37 feet and five and three-quarter inches compared to the previously proposed 28 feet and nine and three-quarters of an inch from the front porch of the house.

It will have a four-foot separation from the existing structure on the east side.

This application has received two letters of support from the public and a letter of support from Woodland Heights Civic Association.

Staff recommends approval and is happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Yasmin.

At this time I'll open the public hearing.

Um first speaker signed up is Sam uh Gianukas.

If you'd please restate your name and for the microphone for the record.

Sam Janukas Creole design.

Uh we worked really hard on this house, as y'all remember from the last hearing when it was somewhat confusing on all the things we were trying to do, and and the question about the attic space.

And and in your uh in your uh information there, you will see that the most of that roof line was burned on the in the attic, and and I'm surprised they even let them put ducking back on it.

Um but we had caught uh Commissioner Cosgrove out there, and he was able to see all this stuff.

We pushed the gable back uh into the roof a bit to disguise it a little more on the left side.

Uh we in in your package you also see other examples a block away where we did three dormers on a very similar house.

Um the um um we moved the entire second floor back two feet uh to to uh push it away from the house some some more.

Um and we also push the garage back uh and uh to uh I don't remember how many feet, two or three feet, because we've pushed it back two or three times.

And so um I was happy to get it into compliance and have Yasmin happy, because that's what I'm here for is to have Yasmine happy, and uh we're good.

So any other questions let me know.

I have some 3D renderings here.

They're a little easier to see than the ones in your package, because the ones in your package are photo real.

So it's really confusing.

It almost looks like the original house.

Uh but I do have some black and white 3Ds that we uh were rushing to get stuff to them and didn't get it, which if you all would like to see them.

Okay.

Why don't we put them on the document camera?

Document camera.

So the upper, can we zoom out a little bit?

The upper one is the one that we uh where we eliminated the upper one that was deferred, and the lower one is is where we are now.

Okay.

And the same here.

The upper is the one that was deferred, and the lower, you can see the dormers push back a little bit.

The garage is pushed back a little bit.

The uh gable on top of the garage is gone now, so it's a little more subtle.

Your time is up.

Time's up.

Oh, I didn't hear it.

Sorry, I can't hear I can't hear what the dam.

I think I think I may see you again, Sam.

So uh you want to keep those?

Yes.

And the and the owners are here to speak also.

Sorry.

Thanks.

Uh the next uh okay, the next speaker is um uh uh is it uh Demet Dimitri Mays?

I think Brianna will go.

Okay.

So Brianna Mays will speak next.

Yes.

Um my husband Dimitri and I are here, and thank you for having us.

Just wanted to reiterate what Sam said.

Um we had uh Commissioner Cosgrove and Yasmin out to the house, and they were both um really helpful with making some changes.

Um I think we've addressed everything as Sam went through.

I believe from our original proposal, we pushed back the garage about eight feet.

Um also made the dormer change, the roof changes.

Um so we're hoping to get approval today.

Thank you for having us.

Thank you.

Dimitri, did you want to say anything or okay?

Apologies.

Okay, is there anyone else here in the audience to speak on this item?

If if so, please announce yourself.

Not hearing anyone, I will close a public hearing.

Are there any questions of staff on this item?

Uh or is there a motion to accept staff's recommendation?

Uh motion to accept um staff's recommendation.

Blakely seconds.

Lakely seconds.

Any other discussion?

All in favor?

I me opposed.

Motion passes, moving on.

Item six.

Sorry, items uh seven Chair Buchek and members of the commission.

This is staff person Yasmin Arslan.

I submit for your consideration agenda item B7 at 417 Highland Street.

Lot 12 Woodland Heights neighborhood division subdivision.

The property includes a historic one thousand three hundred um square foot one-story with single family residence situated on a 7,050 um interior lot.

This properly this property initially went to HAHC on July 17, 2025 for a relocation and a different proposal.

It was denied by HAHC and then by HPAB.

The same owner is now proposing to construct a two-story 2,687 square foot addition, including an attached garage to the rear of a one-story wood siding and a wood frame house.

Um proposed siding will be painted um fibrous cement lap siding with six-inch exposure, trim will be fiber cement, non-original asbestos siding to be removed, and four-inch reveal lap wood siding to be repaired.

Proposed eaves will have closed undersides and fashion fascia boards to match existing eaves.

Roofing will be composition shingles with max ridge height of 32 feet and um uh five five initial inches.

This application has received a letter of opposition from Woodland Heights Civic Association.

Staff recommends approval and is uh here to answer the question any questions.

We also have the agent here to to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you, Yasmin.

Uh this time I open the public hearing.

I do have one speaker signed up.

Um who is Bob uh Rabina Rabinowitz.

And if you could restate your name in the microphone for the record, Bob Ramenowitz architect.

Uh Commissioner Busick, members of the commission.

Um an architect, MacIntyre Benowitz architects in the heights.

I've lived in the heights for about 40 years, so very familiar with the neighborhood.

Um I just wanted to document camera, please.

I'm sorry.

Say that again.

No, he said he's put in the document.

Okay.

All right.

Um I just wanted to start off with the uh the site plan.

Let's see here.

Okay, yeah.

And so the original submittal last year, the challenge with the site is that there's the house's position such that there's a very narrow driveway.

It was very difficult to get into a garage here, and also in the driveway, you can't really fully open the doors.

And they were hoping to move it to the other side, and I think there was some resistance to that, so it was shelved, and then I was hired, and so here we are this year with a completely new design.

Okay.

So I wanted to give um a little bit of context to this.

Um this is the house.

Next door to the east.

It's a large two-story kind of Queen Anne structure with a it's really almost three-story in massing.

That's next door to our project.

And I also um want to show you a couple of recently approved projects under construction, and they were once finished.

This is 511 Highland.

Um you can see the existing house, two-story.

Um they do have uh like a bay projection at the bottom.

I'm just referencing these, these were approved.

That's one block away.

And I'm also referencing uh 627 Highland two-story.

Uh they use this porch to break up the massing.

And then um our project.

Whoops.

So we um took a little different approach and sorry, have another minute or I'm gonna ask, is there can we give the speaker is our motion to give the speaker?

Sounds well.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um we took a little different approach.

We're doing a more traditional addition, but we're differentiating with different window trim, different freeze board heights, different siding exposure, but we are repeating consciously the massing of the front bay at the rear to tie the front and back together.

Uh I want to mention that you do not see the two sides at the same time.

Uh the right is separate.

This is the rear at the garage.

And the other thing I just wanted to show is the front elevation.

Whoops.

The um you can see that the existing house has about a 12-foot height roof height.

Ours is nine foot six.

It's a really dominant roof.

It's such a dominant feature.

That's why we kept the whole addition to the rear to preserve uh the entire roof on this house.

Um that's related to the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh maybe I can ask a question because I one statement is the previous application for this project, uh, which wanted to move the house that that vote uh uh didn't get approval for that as was mentioned.

Um, and the recommendation from the previous commission was to uh explore an addition behind the structure.

So um that is in fact what we're seeing in this application.

Um I noticed how you when I first saw this, how wide it is, the rear edition from left to right, but as you also mentioned, you can only see it only a piece of it from if you're on one side of the house, you see that, and the other side you see only a piece of that on that on the side you're on.

So it is um it's a it's a bit different than some of the homes that we see because the main roof is pretty high in this for of the original structure.

So um anyway, but say thank you for that.

Um it's a bit we like we like seeing submissions come back that um have responding to comments from the commission.

So we also lowered the roof one foot uh in working with you, as mean uh subsequent to our submittal and did some other trim things in response to staff's discussions.

Okay, thank you.

I will ask if there's anyone else in the audience here to speak on this item.

Please announce yourself at this time.

Sure.

Not seeing anyone, I will close the public hearing.

Are there any other final questions?

Uh Commissioner Davis and staff.

Um yes.

Can we see the 3D rendering again?

Sure.

I think the 3D renderings are so helpful because when you look at it flat, it looks like there's something hulk behind it.

Okay.

Oh, she said it's in the report.

Uh it's not in the report.

There's the side um these are human view levels, I level that's the east side.

And that's the last side.

I believe these are in the report.

And the other one, go back.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Of staff is if not, is there a motion to accept staff's recommendation?

Commissioner Davis.

I am still a little overwhelmed with the width of the property.

Um we don't see that very often.

And it just still seems to be a bit overwhelming going with the two wings on either side.

It's really dominate the front bungalows.

Presentation mode, please.

Okay.

Are there any other questions or Mr.

Staff?

Um do you have a picture of the block that could help us to understand like how many other houses have that high a ridge height, for example, on that same street block?

Um is this addition going to sort of blot out the sky when you look at it from across the street while other around it are lower, or are there taller houses nearby so that this new addition is going to sort of fit into the character of that street?

Hi.

So um the picture at the bottom is a two-story um house that is right next to the property.

Um I don't have the number of the ridge height there.

Um I we don't have a full street um image, but those are those are the neighbors, and then I believe if you go down, there are more context area photos.

Would you like us to go on Google Street and show I've been doing that, but maybe a and I can't you still can't, even from Google Street View, make sense of it.

But can you maybe give us something quantitative like how many houses on that street have two stories?

Bob, do you have that um number?

How many houses?

I don't know.

Is it half or seventy-five percent or two or three or so tip?

Yeah, um call it half.

But um the neighbors now.

One moment, sir.

If you'd like to speak, um I'll open the public hearing um and if you can announce your announce yourself and and uh state your name in the microphone for the record.

Sure.

My name is Justin Chichester.

I'm the homeowner.

Hi.

Um I guess Ms.

Jones, the the question is kind of what's the neighborhood look like.

Sorry, did I miss Blakely?

Okay, Ms.

Blakely.

Um it is subservient to the direct neighbor's house.

And uh they have a three-story uh historic home directly next door.

So given the prominence of the roof, as Bob said, you can look at the picture again that Bob wears the but of the neighbor's house, it's lower than that pitch and further set back.

Thank you.

Are there additional questions for staff?

I have an additional question for staff.

Mr.

Smith.

Um in the packet there's a letter of opposition that talks about the attached garage.

Um would this be the only house in the context area with an attached garage?

Um no.

And um there are multiple houses in um that have attached garages.

Typically, woodland heights tend to have a big number of attached garages, and that is why staff is recommending approval.

I believe the houses at the corner at the end of that street do have uh two-story attached garages.

And the architect provided a uh list of attached garages, and he can also speak about that if you if you wish.

Thank you.

You walk.

And I just I'll point out, I mean, some of these projects that we've um approved in the past that were very long, if you will, because they had a attached garage, and but were located at the rear of the property.

Uh sometimes in those cases the roof lines were differentiated so that um the pitch of the garage came down and then in and then went back up for the home and then employed a cricket as was we we saw earlier today uh for the other uh house on Watson.

So that is one way in the past that homes similar to this, and one of those homes was one that was shown by the applic, the architect um in the photograph was one of those reviews that um as I recall the roof the roof was um modified to reflect two masses that were conjoined or pushed up to each other as opposed to one mega uh structure.

Could I speak to the letter of opposition?

Well, we didn't have a speaker signed up to speak in opposition, so uh leave the commissioner about mentioned.

If you want to address it, we all allow.

Okay.

Well, if I think if you put it in a form of a question, he could answer it.

Yeah.

Um I guess uh can the homeowner speak his uh um I guess response to the letter of opposition that was referenced earlier.

Yeah, on the applicant, Bob Rabinowitz.

Yeah, the applicant, sorry.

Bob Rabinowitz applicant.

We got this letter, I think the day before the day of yeah, yesterday, and so I did a quick survey of the neighborhood, walked around within a three-block area of our house.

There are 32 houses with attached garages.

Thirty-two and five on our block.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, this is the house to the east.

Any other questions for staff?

Does someone have a motion in mind to make to bring to bring to the Commissioner Carl Smore?

Motion to accept uh recommendation from staff for approval.

Okay.

I have a motion.

Is there a second?

Second, Escobar.

Escobar seconds.

Uh any other discussion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Opposed.

Uh Broadback opposes.

The motion passes.

We'll move on now to item number eight.

Chair Buchak and members of the commission.

This is staff person, yes, mean our slant.

I submit for your consideration agenda item V8 at 727 Key Street East Norhill.

The property includes a historic 1,079 square foot one-story wood single family residence situated on a 5,616 square foot interior lot.

727 Key Street is a contributing bungalow-style residence constructed circa 1925, located in the Norhill Historic District.

The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story 1,399 square foot addition to the rear of a one-story wood siding and wood frame house.

Proposed siding will be painted fiber cement lap siding with five-inch exposure.

The existing one-story 388 um square foot garage will remain as is with no alterations.

The proposed eve height for the addition is going to be 19 feet uh 5 and 13 over 16 inches.

The proposed roof will be hip with seven over 12 pitch and a ridge height of 27 feet two and three of a of an eighth inch.

Roofing will be composition shingles.

This application has received four letters of support from the public.

Staff recommends approval and is available for questions, and so is the architect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time I open the public hearing.

I do have uh two speakers signed up for this item.

The first speaker is again uh Bob Rabinovitz.

Can I use this?

Document camera, please.

Bob Rabinowitz architect.

We did these you were talking about 3D models and how useful they are.

We did these after we submitted it, so I'm just gonna leave this up here while I talk.

Um so um we are well within the um overall size of recently approved projects.

We uh a couple of design things we did.

We pushed the second floor inboard from the perimeter wall, which uh makes the existing house show off better.

It's a little challenging to do that.

You have to structure it.

It's easier to load on the perimeter, but it's a step we took.

And we also broke up the front massing.

We also um while the new design guidelines have not been passed, and while I don't agree that the neighborhood design guidelines are really legal because we're following the deed restrictions there, we still tried to comply with these the best we could.

So we meet the five-foot setback for a two-story, we meet the 19-foot setback.

They're in design guidelines.

We meet the 45-foot front setback, and these are proposed design guidelines, and we meet the driveway side setback of 13 or 14 feet.

We're also within the overall um area of the new design guidelines.

Um these are some photos of existing houses that are um two-story rear editions that project out to the side.

There's more.

I think there's at least seven or eight in the neighborhood, maybe nine that walking around that we saw.

And I just want to bring up one other thing.

This is from 2016.

It's a project in Norhill that the neighborhood association felt so strongly about.

They came down here and said this is a model project.

This is a model project for development in the neighborhood.

It extends out beyond the side of the house.

And um the fact the president at that time was a vice president on the board uh last year when our project was being reviewed.

And that's my presentation.

Thank you.

Any questions before I go?

You you may be back.

Uh but me that you the you may have a rebuttal.

Um there may be more questions than uh the next speaker is Virginia Kelsey, who has signed up.

If you could restate your name in the microphone.

I'm Virginia Kelsey of Norr Hill.

Um start the clock again.

Okay.

Can we start now with my time?

Um with the ever increasing number of larger additions, um, the residents have expressed greater concern over the impact of second floors over the existing bungalows and changing the character of the neighborhood.

And to address that, the Norrill guidelines state that the second floor additions are not allowed to extend past the size of the original structure, and the same like language is in the city's draft document.

Norhill requests is that the second floor addition be limited to the width of the original structure.

Um, you know, there's been exce um there has been exceptions to this in the past, and not all of those that were shown were ever approved by Norr Hill.

Um, so we could get into a long discussion about each of those.

But this is what they have chosen, and this shows why um Norr Hill is doing that.

If you compare the one on the left, that's with it not extending to the side versus if it does extend to the side.

It greatly impacts the um power of the two-story addition onto the original uh bungalow.

And that is the reason why um Norr Hill does uh set that as their um requirement, as has the city when it's adopted.

Any questions?

It has to do with overall massing and the impact on the neighborhood and the surrounding houses to lessen the the impact.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the speaker?

Yeah, just for clarification, all of the information that you just put up, including that picture is in relation to guidelines, rules that have not been passed.

The Nor Hill neighborhood has.

You are not your job is not to enforce date restrictions.

I know that.

But we are expressing as the neighborhood what we have passed, what our guidelines are, and they are in alignment with what is being presented by the city as a guide, which have not been adopted, but it's recommended, you know, that's what's that's what it is.

And I think it serves as a valuable tool to see what is in the character of the neighborhood.

And too often there is this focus on exceptions instead of what the majority is.

Thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience here to speak on this item would like to speak at this point?

At this hearing.

Okay, not hearing Mr.

Bob, you do have a rebuttal time.

Bob Rabinowitz, um I'd like to address the side setback issue.

Um again, the draft has not been um accepted.

And there's so many restrictions, the 19 foot rear setback, the driveway side restriction that it's very hard and to also not be able to go out to the side, you're really pigeonholed.

Um there are also lots.

What's interesting about this is that there are lots um uh I think 54 feet wide, but there are 60-foot wide lots also, and what they're saying with this draft is you are under the same restrictions, no matter how wide your lot is, you can't go be out beyond the side.

Yet you also have to respect this 19-foot.

Frank, I've been looking at these guideline draft for two years.

I'm an architect.

I never noticed this side setback restriction until I worked on this project.

I don't think a lot of people noticed that.

When the survey questions were asked of residents, it said they were polled about a five-foot setback.

There was no mention that you couldn't go beyond the side of the house.

We're meeting that five-foot setback that was polled if we're using that as a gauge of public opinion within the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With it, I'll close the public hearing.

Are there any other questions of staff on this item?

Uh Commissioner Davis.

Um I originally asked to pull this.

And Bob, thank you very much for providing the 3D rendering.

It makes all the difference in the world to our ability to see the massing of the project.

And it would be wonderful if all editions had that requirement to provide that um to us so that we're not double, you know, second guessing how tall that addition is.

So that was what that was my comment, and thank you.

My issues resolved.

Presentation mode, please.

Okay.

Um are there any other questions of staff or um thoughts to share?

Is there a motion?

Gircy, a motion to approve staff's recommendation.

Okay.

Uh is there a second?

Second, Davis.

Any other discussion?

Uh Commissioner Blakely.

I don't want to hold us up.

Um, but one detail that stands out for me.

Um actually I think I I am sensitive to the the idea of having it all fit in the kind of shaft of the volume, but I think that this addition is actually quite elegantly proportioned and it kind of works really well as a kind of thing that's part of the new, the old one, but it's it's sort of also other because it's has more of a vertical um orientation.

But the one detail that maybe troubles me a little bit is the um the gable that faces front and has a vent, because it looks as though it's trying to mimic uh the gable on the uh original house.

And in general, we tend to prefer that additions have like a language that's their own, so that you don't sort of wonder um so you wouldn't ordinarily we would ask that you not copy details from the original.

So I guess my question to the to the architect would be um, and I guess also the commissioners, this is something we should uh care about.

Should we ask for like a different detail on that gable that that the frontmost gable on the addition that doesn't resemble so much the original house?

Could you um enlarge on the gable on the proposed perfect yes?

For example, if it were a a roof surface that sloped back instead of being like a flat surface with a vent like the uh gables on the house, the porch.

Well, uh I have a motion in a second.

Uh the author of the motion.

Um would you accept uh friendly amendment or the to your motion or would you like to see the vote uh just as presented?

I think that work with the group.

So I don't know if if that um in fact I I I I look I I like the way uh Bob put this together.

We don't have there was an opportunity to have six different windows similar to other other projects we've seen.

This one um I think it works.

The harmony at the scale and the proportion look to seem or seem to work, and if and it actually looks better than not having that projection on the side.

So um I I still make a recommendation to approve or stuff.

Okay.

Well, I have a motion and a second.

So all in favor of the application uh as recommended by staff.

Uh all in favor?

Aye.

And all opposed.

Opposed.

Uh brought back opposes.

Motion passes.

We'll move on to item number nine.

May I have permission to combine item B 9 and 10 together because one is an addition and the other is a the garage with the same property to save y'all's time.

So moved.

I don't know that we have to do a vote on that.

Um, I I believe they were both pulled as far as I know.

Well, they're pulled for discussion, but uh they can be discussed together.

So I don't think we need to have a vote to combine them for the So please proceed with nine and ten together.

Okay.

Um Chair Buchak and members of the commission, this is Tafferson Yasmin Arslan.

I submit for your consideration agenda items B9 and B 10 at 825 West Melwood Street, lot twelve, and in the Norhill Historic District.

The property includes a historic 986 square foot one-story wood frame single family residence situated on a 5,512 square foot interior lot.

It's a contributing bungalow style residence constructed circa 1928, located in the Norhill Historic District.

The applicant proposes to add 985 square foot of living space to the first level.

The original roof pitch of the house is 8 over 12, and the applicant proposes to lower the the roof on the addition to 7 over 12.

No, the house is 8 over 12, lower it to 7 over 12.

The current top eve height is 10 feet, and the applicant proposes a new Eve height of 10 feet and 4 inches for the new roof.

The existing top ridge height is um 20 feet and two inches, and that and he's proposing a new ridge height of 18 feet and three inches.

The current ceiling height on the first level is eight feet and eight inches, and the ceiling height for the new addition, which is one story, if I failed to mention that, is a nine foot and ten inches to match plate height on level one.

The existing uh exterior finish of the house is three and a half reveal uh vinyl siding and the new addition will be five and a half inch trivial fiber cement siding.

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing non-contributing one-story garage and build another one-story garage on the other side of the lot.

The proposed changes um to the applicant is proposing to construct a 276 square foot one-story garage.

The garage will be 43 feet and one inch from the front porch and 62 feet and 10 and a half inch from the prop front property line.

The roof for the garage will be a gable with a pitch of 8 over 12.

The proposed eave height will be 10 feet and 5 inches, and the proposed ridge height will be 15 and 5 inches.

Existing exterior finish of the um the the finish for the garage will be uh 5 and a half reveal wood fiber smooth siding.

This application has received one letter of support from the public.

Staff recommends approval for both applications, and the agent is here to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um at this time I open the public hearing.

We do have a number of speakers signed up, uh, starting with uh Sam G.

Followed by uh Stacey.

Uh, this career design.

I'm sorry to interrupt you.

Um this is a one-story addition to an existing bungalow.

We're under 2,000 square feet of living area.

Again, I followed the guidelines that have been suggested by the City of Houston.

The garage is 60% back on the property.

We're five foot from the corner of the garage to the corner of the house.

But it's a one-story addition to a one-story house, and so it's not a lot of massing to worry about and all of those things.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Thank you.

I see no questions yet, but there may be some to come.

The next speaker is Stacey.

Baringer.

Hi, I'm Robert.

That's fine.

You've also signed up, yeah.

Yeah, thank you.

Um Robert Barringer, the resident of the House.

Um we've been in that house for about four years, and with our growing family, would like to continue to raise our family in the heights.

We like the area, we love the house.

Um, just with the current setup with the detached structure and stuff, not super applicable to what we want to do.

We worked with Sam and were very clear early on that we wanted to keep with the aesthetic of the neighborhood overall.

Um we didn't want to overbuild and add too much of a second story or anything that imposed on neighbors, so we tried to minimize that um as well as moving the the garage to the other side that matches up with the neighborhood as well, um, and moving the garage back a couple of feet to make five feet corner to corner um on there and uh going with those.

So uh we tried to work as best as we can to keep up with the rest of Melwood and Norhill in general and make it fit our family and make it to the neighborhood as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker will then will be Virginia Kelsey.

Back.

Um Virginia Kelsey with Noor Hill.

Um we always welcome one-story designs.

So that's fantastic, and it suits our neighborhood.

And Sam, I'm pleased to hear that you want to follow our guidelines.

Then there are only not yours.

Okay, these are two in alignment.

Everything that I have stated are in alignment for both.

And the two elements that are not are six-foot rear setback instead of the five foot they have.

We are very sensitive in Nor Hill to the one-story sort of atmosphere and keeping the open space.

And the second thing has to do with the height of the garage is limited to nine feet.

Um document camera, please.

Nine-foot garage is what we have been approving in Ore Hill for many, many years.

And 10 foot six begins to impose that against the house, and you can see what a dramatic difference that just lowering it to 18 inches, it still has an eight-foot garage door.

It still functions as a garage.

Those are the two only two elements that are an issue with the Norr Hill guidelines.

Otherwise, it's a nice, you know, we're excited about the design.

Thank you.

I will ask if there's anyone else here attending uh that would like to speak on this item, please announce yourself at this time.

Not hearing, Sam, you have a rebuttal.

Um the uh new design guidelines that are not in place yet uh call for a maximum ridge height of 17 feet.

And I don't remember we're like 15 because we dropped it.

Uh Yasmin called and said you need to lower that garage.

The reason the garage has a little bit of height uh above the garage door is for storage.

The client wanted some area to to be able to store stuff, Christmas stuff, all those things, and that's the that's the difference that you see there.

And we didn't want to do a seven-foot garage door because it's really not practical in today's world to do a seven-foot garage door.

So that's why we kept the eight-foot garage door to be able to park a vehicle that's uh you know, an SUV or whatever.

So that's the reason the garage looks that way is for storage for the client.

Thank you, Sam.

Are there any questions of any of the speakers we've heard from?

Commissioner Davis.

Uh do you have a 3D on this one?

I do not.

Oh, you don't?

Okay.

Presentation mode, please.

Are there any other questions of staff?

I have a question for staff.

The the applicant stated that um the uh garage is 60 percent back into the lot.

Can you confirm that that's true?

I believe you meant to say 60 feet.

It's 60 feet to the back from the prop front property line.

I'm not sure if the percentage is right, but it's 60 feet.

And what's the total depth of the lot?

100 feet.

100 feet.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions of staff?

And may I address a three the 3D comment if you don't mind?

We always welcome three Ds.

But as as far as we know, architects or agent might ask extra.

It's an extra expense.

So I don't know that if legally we can ask them to do that, but we always encourage that.

But when they say like, no, we're not providing 3D, as far as I know, we can't make them.

But you're you're absolutely correct.

It makes a big difference.

Any other questions?

If no questions, is there a motion?

Davis, so moved.

To accept Staff's recommendation.

Staff's recommendation.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Blakely seconds.

Any other discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Motion passes.

Moving on to item uh so that was nine and ten.

Now we're moving on to item twelve.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission.

This is Staff First and Samantha De Leone.

I submit item B 12 at 700 Euclid Street in the Woodland Heights Historic District for your consideration.

The 2,666 square foot, two-story contributing prairie style property was built circa 1915, situated on a 16,130 square foot corner lot.

The applicant was approved for a 902 square foot rear addition in June of 2025.

The applicant is proposing to demolish part of the existing 732 square foot one-story garage and add 436 square foot of workshop space on the first floor and 363 square foot to the second floor.

Staff recommends approval.

Chair and members of the commission, the agent Sam Gianukos is here to answer any questions.

I'm also available to answer any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Samantha.

At this time I'll put the public hearing.

Oh my goodness.

Sam's just make it two minutes.

If you all have any questions, please ask.

It's a garage edition, so I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

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

Not hearing anyone out close the public hearing.

For this item, I know it was pulled for review, but Commissioner Broadbag pulled this.

Okay.

Is there a motion then?

Gircia motion to approve staff's recommendation.

Is there a second?

Second Escobar.

Okay.

Discussion all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That passes.

Thank you.

And we will now move on to see comments from the public.

Virginia Kelsey.

I'm Virginia Kelsey.

In um as the Nor Hill guidelines may go be going forward.

Um I'd like to offer there's a possibility to have uh uh appropriate forum for members of HAHC to visit Norr Hill to understand the neighborhood before passing the guidelines.

And I don't know, I know there's all kinds of legal hoops in terms of you can't just come and you have to have it a public meeting and whatever it takes for you to be able to do it.

We can offer it to all members of the neighborhood.

We can announce it to be public, we can do it for time of your choosing, but we'd like to offer that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have another member, Emily Argon.

And if you could reset your name in the microphone for the record.

Document camera, please.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Um since 1979, Preservation Houston has given annual awards to recognize outstanding historic preservation projects in Houston.

And we have our winner list for this year.

Winners are chosen by an independent jury and cover projects that were done in the last five years, and they are formally presented at our annual cornerstone dinner at the River Oaks Country Club.

This year's winners include six buildings that are designated as landmarks or protected landmarks and two properties that are contributing buildings in historic districts, meaning that many of the winning projects were approved by this commission.

Also, three of the projects were completed with the help of state and or federal historic tax credits, demonstrating the power of those great uh very important incentives for bringing our buildings back to life.

I'm not gonna list out all of the the winners.

We have a total of 16 winners this year, um, but they are on our website at preservationhouston.org/slash awards, and I'll just point out a few of them that we have shown here.

Um, one is the adaptive reuse of St.

Elizabeth Hospital into St.

Elizabeth Place in Fifth Ward.

That's an adaptive uh sorry, an affordable housing development by Fifth Ward CRC and Cloud Break Communities.

Um another winner is the rehabilitation of the River Oaks Theater, uh, which you know many of you have probably seen by now and we're all very excited about.

Adaptive reuse of the 1910 Stewart House in the Avondale Historic District as the Marlene Bed and Breakfast.

Uh restoration of the 1950 reflection pool and colonnades at the Houston Zoo, which was designed by Chair Buch, and the restoration of historic concrete street markers by the Southampton Place Civic Association.

This was a project that the neighborhood undertook with those little concrete obelisks that you see in many neighborhoods.

Um the awards are going to be presented at our Cornerstone dinner coming up Friday, uh February 27th, and we hope to see many of you there.

Um tickets are available on our website at PreservationHouston.org/slash cornerstone.

Um, and I do want to mention one other award winner.

We have um the president's award is given every year to recognize a person who's made a difference in preservation in Houston.

This year's award is going to former Commissioner Steve Curry.

Beyond his service on the HAHC, he also serves as the president of Houston MOD.

Um and in 2025, especially, his work was instrumental in two very important saves.

Um, the 1950 concrete pylon and bus shelter structure at the old Garden Oak Sears.

Um the building is gone, but the structure is still there and is going to serve as signage for the new development.

Um, and also the Victor Lundy House uh in Bel Air, um, which he was he was part of the big effort in saving, and and that building is safe today.

So thank you all very much.

And uh please please look at the website for the complete list of winners, and we hope to see some of you on the 27th.

Thank you, Emily.

And um, I should mention you yourself are also a former Commission member of this commission.

That is true, and a former good brick winner.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public here that would like to address the commission?

Not hearing anyone, we will move on now to item D, Historic Preservation Officers Report.

Yasmine.

I'm very happy with 442.

That's this is awesome.

Okay.

Um, good afternoon and happy new year.

As I mean, still happy new year as the first commission.

So um, Chair Buchek, Commission members and the public.

I am staff person Yasmin Arslan, and I am the interim preservation officer.

I'm pleased to present the first preservation officer report for 2026.

Yesterday, City Council held a public hearing for the 2024-2025 proposed designation of two landmarks, four protected landmarks, and two change of designations.

All eight of these properties are scheduled to appear on January 21 City Council meeting agenda to be officially designated.

Properties included two churches, five residents, and one commercial structure.

This has been a long-awaited process, so we are appreciative of everyone's uh patience and hard work on making this possible.

Staff is making grammatical edits and modifications based on feedback we've received from the public for the draft Nor Hill Design Guidelines.

We are working on scheduling a special public hearing in March for the official review of this document before next steps can take place for adoption of the guidelines at the Norhill Design Guidelines at City Council at some point in 2026.

Staff is still working on enhancing the Houston Preservation Tracker Site meeting bi-weekly with IT to fix bugs.

Staff plans to soon email applicants to complete a survey about preservation tracker.

If you have any comments, please submit them to Historic Preservation at Houston, Texas.gov.

I would like to take a moment to honor Kara Quigley.

Cara has been a vital member of our team for the past two and a half years.

She joined us after completing her Masters of Historic Preservation at UT Austin School of Architecture.

She played a key role in the development of Norhill Design Guidelines, Our Landmarks, Section 106 Review, GLO, Lions Avenue, and so much more.

Her dedication and expertise have greatly advanced our preservation efforts.

We are deeply grateful for her public service and the positive impact she's had in our office.

While we are sad to see her go, we wish her nothing but success in her new endeavors.

Cara's presence and contributions will be sincerely missed.

As we move into 2026, we are excited to continue our mission of preserving Houston's historic structures and serving the public.

Closing, if you have any 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.

And with that, we are adjourned.