We are almost there, but we're going to go ahead and start the front end of the meeting.

Good afternoon.

It is now 243, April 23rd 2026.

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

I am Commission Chair David Buch to verify we have a quorum.

I will call the roll.

The Chair is present.

Commissioner Jones.

Present.

Commissioner Smith.

Carl Smith, sorry.

Okay.

Commissioner Blakely.

Present.

Commissioner Escobar.

Commissioner Hill.

Present.

Commissioner Cosgrove?

Present.

Commissioner Seidel.

Present.

Commissioner Mark Smith is present.

Commissioner Browning is sick today.

Commissioner Broadbeck.

Present.

Commissioner Garcia?

Present.

Commissioner Davis.

And Deputy Director Robert Williamson.

Present.

Thank you, Commissioners.

We have a quorum.

I will begin by the Chair's report with the speaker rules for this meeting.

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

Please note that the meetings do often start after the scheduled time to allow the HTV broadcast to go live.

Speakers, if you wish to address the Commission on an item, please fill out one of the speaker forms before the item is called and turn it into the staff member nearest the front door.

The speaker rules are posted on the agenda, but are at my discretion at this at this meeting.

The applicant or the representative for the applicant will be asked to open and speak for three minutes.

In doing so, you may also be recognized to close with an additional two minutes.

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

Please note that the chair or members of the commission may have questions for any of the public speakers and may call upon you for additional answers.

Please note that for individual consideration of certificate of appropriateness after staff's initial presentation.

And we hope to keep this meeting on schedule, even though we do have a long uh list of items today, and we will see what will be passing on the consent agenda.

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

Thank you, Chair Buchek.

And good afternoon, Commissioners and members of the public.

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

For my report today, I've got a couple announcements.

First, we held a public hearing on March 24th to review and solicit comments for the proposed Norr Hill design guidelines.

All the comments received are being reviewed and evaluated in a revised draft will be posted for final hearing and vote by HAHC at the May meeting.

So guidelines can then be forwarded to City Council for approval.

Second is a housekeeping note for the public and for the record.

So beginning this past February, staff instituted a hard cutoff date for applicants to submit any additional information by the end of the day on Wednesday, a week before the next HAHC meeting.

This is required so staff has enough time to finalize draft reports for posting on Friday, allowing commissioners and the public time to review before the upcoming HAHC meeting the following Thursday.

Applicants will be allowed to present additional and revised information at the HAHC meeting, whereby commissioners may accept and consider that additional information or defer the application to allow additional time to review.

This change also supports the Commission's longstanding policy of only allowing commissioners to abstain for conflicts of interest.

Finally, since our two February 2026 meeting, we received nine requests for pre-application design reviews, 40 new COA applications, which brings our total pre-designs to 20 and our year-to-date COAs to 99.

Today's meeting is the most active meeting we've had all year.

We've also administratively approved 10 COAs during this cycle, bringing our year-to-date count to 22.

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

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will not have a Mayor's liaison report today, so we will move on for the consideration of the February 12, 2026 HAHC meeting minutes.

Commission members, if have you had a moment to review the minutes.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Jones seconds.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

That motion passes.

And we will now move on to item A, the public hearing and consideration of and possible action on a protected landmark designation application for the House at 1317 Ruthven Street, Houston, Texas, 77019.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha DeLeon.

I submit for item for your consideration item A at 1317 Ruth Fenn Street for the protected landmark designation of the House at 1317 Ruth Fenn.

1317 Ruth Fenn is a circa 1894 one-story cottage built for the Lewis C.

Art Suey around 1894 and is listed as a contributing historic structure in the Freedmanstown National Register Historic District.

The House is one of the oldest surviving structures in Freedmanstown, a community settled after emancipation that became a thriving center of black social, cultural, religious, and commercial activity through the first three decades of the 20th century.

The Freedmanstown Historic District has undergone rapid development over the past 20 years, and approximately 75 percent of the neighborhood's historic buildings have been lost.

Since so few historical buildings remain, even modest houses such as the House of 1317 Roofbend have historical significance and serve as important connections to the story of Freedmanstown.

First to the small immigrant uh Italian immigrant community that settled in the area in the late 1800s, to the early 1900s, and later as a reminder of the working class African American families who are able to buy and occupy their homes during a time when opportunities to do so were limited.

The current owner is seeking protected landmark status for 1317th Ruth Bend to preserve one of the last remaining historic homes on the street and to ensure it remains part of the fabric of the neighborhood.

The property includes the house, a two-story outbuilding on the southwest center or southwest corner, a non-historic small shed on the east side, and a non historic per uh pergola structure in the backyard.

Protected landmark status would apply only to the primary house.

The nonhistoric outbuildings in the pergola are excluded.

The House at 1317 Ruth Fenn meets criteria one, four, five, and eight for landmark designation, and criteria one, two, and three for protected landmark designation.

The nomination was written by David Putts and Emily Arduin with Preservation Houston.

Staff recommends that the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission recommend to City Council the protected landmark designation of 1317 Ruth Fenn Street, Houston, Texas, 77019, known as the House at 1317th Ruth Fenn.

Chair and members of the Commission, I know that Emily Arduin from Preservation Houston is here to speak on this item if we have any questions.

I am also available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

At this time I will open the public hearing.

This time I have one speaker signed up for this item, which is Emily Ardouan.

There we go.

Good afternoon.

I'm Emily Ardwan with Preservation Houston, speaking in support of the nomination for 1317 Ruthven Street.

I mean, you you all are familiar with Freedmanstown.

It's one of our most important historic resources in Houston, and we welcome any opportunity to protect one of the precious few older structures that are still remaining.

So we prepared this nomination at the request of the homeowner.

Um we were very excited to be able to do so.

It's a it's a pretty well-preserved house in addition to being one of the older um surviving uh homes in the neighborhood.

And um we are just honored to be able to uh to submit this nomination.

So needless to say, we support it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the public who would like to speak on this item but did not fill out a forum?

Not hearing anyone, I will close the public hearing and ask Commission members if there are any questions of staff for this application or if there's a motion.

I'll move to accept staff's recommendation.

And Jones will second.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

That motion passes.

We'll move on to item B.

Item B will be the consideration of and possible action on referral to the Texas Historical Commission for nomination to the National Registry of Historic Places for the Style and Steel Townhouses.

At Houston, Harris County, Texas, the addresses are three.

They are 4156, 4158, and 4160, Myrawood Drive in Houston, Texas, 77025.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha DeLeon.

I submit item B for the consideration and possible action on referral to Texas Historical Commission for the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places for the Style and Steel Townhouses.

The Style and Steel Townhouses located in the southwest quadrant of the relatively small subdivision of Townhouse Manor, approximately seven miles southwest of Houston's downtown commercial district and less than one mile from the southwest corner of 610 at 4156, 4158, and 4160 Meyerwood Drive in Houston, Texas.

They were built in 1968 as a demonstration project for the January 1969 National Association for Home Builders show at the Astro Dome Ash Show Hall.

Sponsored by the American Iron and Steel Institute, Houston Lighting and Power, and General Electric, the houses were a promotional development intended to show the practicality and advantages of steel in residential construction.

Steel was used throughout the house, not only in the structure itself, but also in the furniture, equipment, and fittings.

The style and steel townhouses were also used to demonstrate the live the Live Better Electrically Gold Medallion Home Construction Program, sponsored nationally by General Electric, and all three townhouses featured a wide array of innovative electrical appliances or electric appliances and accessories.

The construction of the style and steel townhouses was extensively documented and publicized.

The style and steel townhouses are significant under criterion C in the area of architecture at the local level of significance as an excellent intact example of a demonstration house project construction during constructed during the mid-20th century.

The project incorporated characteristics found in steel demonstration houses constructed starting in the 1930s, as well as the innovative all-electric heating power lighting and appliances promoted by General Electric in the 1950s and 60s.

The period of significance is 1968, the year of construction.

Staff recommends that the HACC refer the nomination of the Style and Steel Townhouses to the Texas Historical Commission for listening on the National Register of Historic Places.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time I open the public hearing.

I do not have anyone signed.

I've signed up to speak on this item, but if you would like to say anything about this application, please announce your name now.

Not hearing anyone, I will close the public hearing.

Commission members, are there any questions of staff or um would anyone like to uh make a motion to refer this these address projects to the commission for consideration for the National Registry?

So moved.

I have a motion.

Is there a second?

Please seconds.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion passes.

And we'll move on to items C for the consideration and possible action on referral to the Texas Historical Commission for the nomination to the National National Registry of Historic Places for Olivewood Cemetery here in Houston, Texas, Harris County at 1300 Court Street, Houston, Texas, 7707.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Commission.

This is Staff Person Aaron Edwards.

I submit item C for consideration and possible action on referral of Texas Historical Commission for the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places in Olivewood Cemetery.

Olivewood Cemetery is an excellent and seldom example of African American community cemetery with African American burial traditions and design elements that was founded in this association with the rural cemetery movement in the United States.

Established in the early 19th century, the cemetery represents a wide range of community members, including leaders in education, the church, and local businesses.

The community plan to the SEM to plan the cemetery during reconstruction as a gathering place.

Members of the local church, schools, and fraternal organizations working together to establish the cemetery association, purchase the cemetery land, and design the cemetery landscape.

At a time when only cemeteries available to African Americans were segregated city cemeteries, leaders in the African American community sought to establish a private space where they can interact with one another and honor their ancestors according to their own cultural traditions.

Oliverwood has a formally designed landscape influenced by the rural cemetery movement with an elliptical drive that provides access to the cemetery, a park-like setting with a wide variety of planted trees, and a view of nearby white oak bay.

At the time, it contains brave decoration and grave tending goods specifically associated with African American culture and African influence belief systems.

The presence of styled and homemade markers reflect the range of people buried in Olivewood, from prominent businessmen to le to laborers or laundresses who have been who may have been economically less secured but proudly exercise their civil rights.

For their for many of those who were interred in the Olivewood have ties of state and national organizations, politics, and people.

Several people buried in Olivewood have connections with African American intellectuals such as Booker T.

Washington and President Woodrow Wilson.

Olivewood is Houston's first private African American cemetery and stands out for its integrity, location, design, materials association, and the feeling throughout of the 1875 through 1961 period of significance.

The Olivewood Cemetery is nominated for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for ethnic heritage, black and community planning and development, under criterion C for landscape and architecture at the state level of significance.

It also meets consideration D for cemeteries because its primary significance is derived from burials of Houston early African American leaders, the unique merging of rural cemetery movement landscape design, and African derived symbolism and burial practice.

Staff recommends the HAHC refer to the nomination of Olivewood Cemetery to next to Texas Historical Commission for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time I'll open the public hearing in this item.

I do not have anyone sign up to speak for this item.

If you would like to anyone in the audience wants to say anything about the project or ask any questions, please do so now.

Not hearing any.

Motion to approve staff recommendation.

Okay.

I have a motion.

Garcia second.

Garcia seconds.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstention?

That motion passes.

And we will now move on for the consideration and possible action on the following applications for certificate of appropriateness.

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

And we will now hear the proposed consent items for review.

Got 31 items.

I was going to just mention the items that were not on the consent agenda, but that would in turn still have to uh state the numbers on the consent agenda anyway.

So I'm just going to do it the regular way.

I'm going to skip the app application type and the historic district for the sake of time and just say the address, the number, and the recommendation, if that's okay.

Please.

Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners and the public.

I'm staff member Terrence Jackson.

Staff recommends the following items for action per staff recommendation in one motion.

Items D1, 1246 Alston recommendation approval.

D 2, 1235 Yale.

Recommendation approval.

D4, 1521 Columbia, recommendation, approval with conditions.

D5, 1521 Columbia Street, recommendation approval.

D7, 607 Harvard, recommendation approval with conditions.

D eight, 607 Harvard Street.

This is a garage, and the recommendation is approval.

D 9, 1519 South Boulevard, recommendation approval.

D 14, 815 West Cottage Street, denial of a COA issuance of a COR.

D 15, 415 Harvard Street alteration, recommendation approval.

D16, 415 Harvard Street, alteration of a garage recommendation approval.

D 17202 East 31st Street.

It's East 31st and a half street.

It has been deferred by the applicant.

D 18, 528, Columbia Street, denial of a COA issuance of a COR.

D19, 528 Columbia Street, alteration, uh recommendation approval with conditions.

D 20, 525, T shorn, recommendation approval.

D 22, 824 West Temple, recommendation approval.

D 23, 824, West Temple, new construction of a garage recommendation approval.

D 24, 1316, Harvard, recommendation approval.

D 25, 1316, Harvard, alteration of a garage recommendation approval.

D 26, 505, Sol Ross, recommendation approval with conditions.

Excuse me.

D 29 2110 Decatur Street recommendation approval.

D 30 11 12 Jerome Street recommendation approval.

D 31 39 3709, Montrose Boulevard, recommendation approval.

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

The items proposed for individual consideration, therefore, are items D3, D6, D 10, D11, D 12, D13, and D 21.

We're here for any questions.

Thank you.

Commission members, are there any items on the proposed consent agenda that you would like to pull for individual discussions?

I just got a little lost.

Sorry.

So there are denial of a COA and issuance of a COR for D14, 815 West Cottage.

D 18 528 Columbia Street.

And that's it.

And that's for D 18, that's a denial.

Denial of a COA issuance of a COR.

Okay.

Thank you.

I've got Commissioner Seidel.

It's on.

I don't think it's close enough.

I've got uh 19 and 26 as approval with conditions.

Is that right?

Yes, sir.

That is correct.

That's the only ones that have that the approval with conditions.

No.

We have D4 approval with conditions.

I mean, I'm D4 1521 Columbia Street approval with conditions.

D7 607 Harvard approval with conditions.

D19 528 Columbia Street approval with conditions.

And D 26505 Sol Ross Street approval with conditions.

I feel as though I'd like to take a look at those.

And those are 19 and 26.

47 19 26.

Mr.

Chair.

I concur.

I'd like to add 45 7 and 8.

Okay.

So we'll remove 4, 5, 7, and 8.

And I would like to look at the ones that are with the recommendation of a denial.

Just because we haven't had a chance to look at the reports.

Conditions.

They could be really fast, but you mean denial of a COA issuance of a C O R?

Okay.

So Terrence, that's going to be 14 and 18.

Yes.

So the items that I have to be.

Well, we're not done yet.

I think Mr.

Sidel, there are still items 19 and 26.

Is that I think those were part of the group?

They were not, but you can add Okay.

Yeah, well I would like to pull 19 and 26, too, for the same reason, just to run through the conditions, that's all.

Okay.

And I do believe for those projects that were pulled for approval with conditions, there were speakers signed up for them from the audience.

So in all cases.

Are there any other for the commission?

Are there any other projects that you want to meet you checked on item D2, 1235?

I need to abstain from that.

I am not sure how that works being the freshman member here or Commissioner here.

Do I need to not vote on the on the um I believe I'll ask legal I believe since we are potentially voting on projects that we're not going to be discussing outright, you can stay in the room and you you will be noted as an abstention for item number two on the consent agenda if if it is to pass.

And if it if it were to be pulled for discussion, then you you would you you might would leave the room while the deliberations would happen.

But you're for now you're you're still can take hold on your seat.

Okay.

At this time I am going to open the public hearing uh because I do have a number of people that have signed up for various projects to speak on them, although many of them have been pulled.

But if there is anyone else in the audience that is here for an item that has been put on the consent agenda, if you agree with the staff's recommendation, I would advise not to say anything and let it be voted on.

But if in fact you do not agree with staff's recommendation and you would like to see the app the the project be discussed openly, uh please uh approach the podium to announce your yourself, your name, and what the project number you would like to remove for um the consent.

Um Staff Member Tanis Jackson, while while we await that, um I just want to make sure that I I uh point out that um no drawings have changed since the drafts have been uploaded because of the policy that Robert mentioned earlier.

So there may be conditions that were added or something like that, but no drawings have changed on any uh drafts that were submitted at the deadline.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm not hearing any other um requests for polling items.

I'll wait for this is Mrs.

Matthew Mendoza, legal department.

It may be helpful to indicate which items are now up on consent agenda.

Uh I will read the remaining list.

Just so the audience is able to know whether their item will be on consent agenda or has been pulled for individual consideration.

Certainly.

Okay.

All right, I will close the public hearing at this time and I will read um what is currently the consent agenda, uh, which is for uh item one, twelve forty-six Olsen Street, item two, twelve thirty-five Yale Street.

Item nine, fifteen nineteen South Boulevard, item 15, 1415 Harvard Street, along with item 16, also at the same address.

Item 17, 2022 East 31st.

That's a deferral street, which is a deferral, but it will be deferred by consent.

Yes.

Um then I'm next is item 20, 525 Teachorn Street.

Item 22, 824, West Temple Street.

Also item 23, also at the same address.

Item 24, 1316 Harvard Street.

Item 25, 1316 Harvard Street as well.

Item 27, 300 Main Street, item 28, 1900 Decatur Street, item 29, 2010 Decatur Street, item 30, um 112, Jerome Street, and lastly, item 31, 3709, Montrose Boulevard.

That's correct.

The uh only minor correction I have is that it's 1907 Decatur Street, not 1900.

I'm sorry, 1907 Decatur Street, yes.

Other than that, that's the correct consent agenda, that's what I have.

Okay.

Commissioners, um is there a motion to accept the revised consent um agenda list and the recommended um and the recommended recommendations from staff.

Second hill.

I don't have a coin, but I'll I'll we'll we'll let Mr.

Rodbed take the motion.

I'll second it.

Conservable second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed and any abstentions?

Um there's one for item two for Mr.

Garcia.

Do those together.

Okay, so at this time we'll move on to item three, five twenty-eight Woodland Street.

Good afternoon, Chair Buchak, and members of the commission.

This is Staff Person Yasmin Arslan.

Today I submit for your consideration.

Agenda item D3 at 528 Woodland Street, Woodland Heights.

The property includes a historic 1,685 square foot house with a two-story garage towards the rear on a 7,500 square foot corner lot.

It is a contributing craftsman bungalow residence constructed circa 1920, located in Woodland Heights.

The existing structure is a one-story house with a detached garage and garage apartment.

The proposed work includes adding square footage at the rear on the first floor and on the second floor.

The project includes attaching the existing garage structure to the main house.

The house contains the house's um the proposal adds 571 square feet of conditioned space on the first floor and 1,700 on the second floor.

The existing roof pitch is 7 over 12, and the addition is going to be 6 over 12.

The existing ridge height is 23 feet and 4 inches, and the proposed is going to be 30 feet and 1 inches.

The existing exterior uh cladding is a 5 and a half inch trivial woodlap siding.

The addition will use smooth face, uh, fiber cement lap siding with the same um trivial, with the same 5.5 inch reveal to match existing.

This application has received five letters of support from the public and the and a letter of support from the Woodland Heights deed restrictions.

Staff recommends approval and is available to answer questions.

Thank you.

At this time I will open the public hearing.

I do have a number of speakers signed up.

Um I do have three individuals who have indicated they are the applicant.

So I'm going to assume that uh Sam Gino Sam Genokis, you're going to speak first.

To be followed by Martina Stevens.

Okay, those that's in that second before you should.

Sorry.

Sam, Janukas Creo Design.

Um document camera, please.

I have some 3D renderings here attached.

Show the three four.

Okay.

Um is of the existing house from the street from the middle of the street.

Um you can see it there.

Um the then the side view of the this is of the existing structure.

It has a big garage at the back, so the massiness is pretty good size there.

Then if you'll go to the here is there's the side.

Uh the side of it.

Then the next page.

Then that's the front with the addition.

And then the next page shows the addition.

There were four previously approved.

And it's show the shaded one I gave you there.

There are four previously approved houses.

Okay, uh what we're actually adding, he's going to show you here is the shaded part in the middle.

Everything else that you see there, the clear or the white, not shaded, is the original house.

We have also have four other houses.

One at 400 burn, uh 504 burn, 400 Omar, 310 Euclid, and 309 Balin that were also approved.

We are that were also approved.

Um one that is very close to what we're what we're proposing was approved on the consent agenda.

And that is at 400 burn.

Then we have another one at 310 Euclid that's currently under construction.

That was as a massive remodel to the back of it.

You can see that.

And no offset, no nothing.

Uh then 309 Balin, which is one of my favorites.

Is there?

You can see the addition that was previously approved last month.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

G.

Nigas.

Any questions?

I'm here.

Are there any questions of the speaker of the commission?

Okay, thank you.

Um I do know there are all ones.

There are a few more folks who have signed up to speak on this uh item, which are also um supportive of the project.

And the next is Martina Stevens to be followed by Sam Stevens.

Thank you.

Um so I am the applicant.

This is our home.

Um we are going to raise our girls there.

They are currently at Travis Elementary in the neighborhood.

They continue uh all the way up through high school.

And uh we just wanted to say that we have the support of our surrounding neighbors and also the uh neighborhood association, and we just um would uh ask for your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Presentation mode, please.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for your time and attention today.

My name is Sam Stevens, Martinez husband, owner of uh 528 Woodland.

I'd just like to start by saying that um we love our neighborhood, we love our neighbors, we love our neighborhood association, and we greatly value the historic preservation of the neighborhood.

We've worked closely with with our neighbors, um, which is also why we chose Sam for the uh architecture to do our best to match the homes in the neighborhood and to use the renovation to amplify the historic characteristics of the house.

We purchased the house from Byron King, who had lived there since the early 80s.

Unfortunately, as he aged, he was unable to keep up with the home, even though he he did uh care very much about the historic value, and he um sold the home to us without being put on the market because we had met him and he he liked it.

We cared very much for the home.

And um, so we just uh asked for your approval and know that we are using this for uh our family to live in and to raise them and to value the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And one more speaker signed up for this item, which is um I believe it's a nail uh Pranker.

Ariel Pragner, yes, thank you all for your time.

Um I am a neighbor of the Stevens.

I live at 405 Highland, which is also on the agenda today.

I know the Stevens well, their daughter is my best friend.

I've looked at their drawings in detail.

I think they preserve the historic character of our home.

I think they're appropriate to the size and scale of other homes in the neighborhood, and I would be happy to see that in our neighborhood.

We only have 386 homes in the Woodland Heights, and there are not that many of us.

We're very close, and I have not heard a word of opposition.

Everyone that I've talked to is in favor of this, and I'd ask you to approve it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I don't have any more speakers signed up for this item.

But it's if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak, please announce yourself now.

Okay, not hearing anyone.

I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Commission members, are there any questions of staff?

Question for staff, Commissioner Broadbeck.

Okay.

Were the items that were displayed by the applicant's agent a few minutes ago, were those included in the application that was submitted to the commissioners?

No.

So we're seeing them tonight for the first time.

I don't know what he's showing examples of things he says that were approved.

Okay.

We don't have to put them in the staff report.

That's not a not a necessity.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions of staff?

If there are no questions, is there a motion?

I would like to make a motion to defer the application by a month because we were presented with new material that the commissioners did not have an opportunity to review in advance.

This has been a recurring problem with this commission since I joined, and it's got to stop at some point.

I I really don't want to be seeing things for the first time at the meeting.

I mean, um, Commissioner Broadbeck, we don't control what the applicant wants to present.

As long as we have a complete staff report that is not missing, him providing us with previously approved draft is is not a must for a staff report.

So it doesn't incomplete the staff report.

I did not know that he was presenting these, and so there's no nothing contradicting what we're presenting.

Again, staff and legal can um speak about that.

I don't know that we are against or we control what they present, especially here.

Let me ask it this way.

I mean, the as the Deputy Director announced today, my understanding was, you know, I guess Austin Director for clarification, but my understanding was that there are two statements here.

One, the application that was submitted on Friday is still the valid application that's still before us.

The second one is my understanding was that the applicants could show information for clarity at this meeting.

Can you comment on that as correct?

The the applicants are free to submit additional information after the cutoff time at the meeting today, and the commissioners can decide to review that, accept that information or make a motion to defer.

I I think the issue is I do have a motion.

So I would just uh mention that.

Um if I didn't misunderstand, no new that the scheme that was shown in the renderings was not different from the scheme that's in the application.

So it's not as though we're being asked to rule on something that we've only seen in very recently presented materials.

There's plenty of uh basis for ruling in the application as it is.

That's different from if someone said, Oh, oh, I I know maybe you don't won't like what's in the application, let me show you something different at the hearing.

That would be problematic in my view.

If I may, um I don't disagree with anything you just said.

For me, it's the principle of the matter.

When we accept materials from applicants for the first time at meetings, we're setting a precedent.

And what do we do next time new materials are submitted that do make a difference?

And that actually has happened in the last several months.

And there were people in this room that wanted to abstain, and we were told we couldn't.

So I'd like to stop it so that new materials are not submitted by applicants at the meeting.

That's the motive.

I don't think it's I don't think it's wrong.

You may disagree.

But what new materials are being presented as part of the application?

I don't I've I've kind of following you.

And I'm not real sure what I understand what you are referencing, because I was in here when that occurred, but in this case, uh we have got 3D renderings.

We just got a better version of the same thing.

So Commissioner Davis, you had a comment?

Yes.

Um just from my experience on the other side of the fence, um, my understanding was that the applicant can't just give the office what things that they want to have presented that because I think it would be brilliant to have a bulleted point from the applicant that explains why they wanted to do what they do.

But my understanding is that's not that that's not a thing, that they can't do that.

So is there any other place that for these images to be another question?

Okay, Commissioner Blakely.

Um because the just noticing that the recommendation of staff is approval and all the speakers uh were on the side of approval.

I'm a little bit wondering why this was not on the consent agenda.

So I mean is there an issue even apart from the one that was just raised that we should be focusing on the uh I think that the addition uh which is you know there's an existing home and existing garage.

There's still a large mass that's being added from a massing proportion standpoint.

Um Woodland Heights, I will just say does have a number of homes that um that the requests are made for larger additions to them.

So it's a neighborhood, as you may know, that doesn't have uh design guidelines, so it doesn't have like a FAR or anything like that.

So there's not a limiting factor to try to set what what massing would be.

So uh I I believe it's more about the massing and um which is why it's it's being discussed openly with the commission to see what the commission um has to say about it.

My my main uh my main response to the the question though is just if the application hasn't changed per the recommendations from the the city staff, I I don't know if having a rendering of the same product is an issue.

If I may This is Matthew Mendoza, legal departments.

Um your point is well taken, Commissioner Rodbeck.

Um the applicant may present new material at the meeting, but the Commission is it's within their discretion to include that, to approve that new material or deny it or defer.

Um so we still have a motion to defer on the table.

That's well within the Commission's right to defer.

Um with this particular information being presented in this particular application, it's kind of up to y'all and how y'all will decide on whether that motion to defer is passed or not.

I I appreciate your comment.

Uh the problem is that when we don't know in advance that new materials will be presented at the meeting, once pictures are shown to us, you can't unsee things.

What I'm trying to do is just put a stop to new stuff being shown to us by applicants for the first time at the meeting.

That's all I'm trying to put a stop to.

If I may explain the 3D rendering that is black and white is shown on the report, that is what was in the draft and is in the final.

Um I I guess what the applicant has done is uh render it using AI to make it look real.

Um it's the same design, but yes, this was not given to staff.

Uh this is the first time I see it, but it is the same design.

And you you can compare if you would like uh with the black and white rendering and then um this.

So just wanted to make sure that's clear.

Um Deputy Director Williamson.

So I would just like to make the comment.

I don't think this rises the level of new information.

Um it's just the information is in the packet.

This is just alternative information.

Respectfully disagree.

Commissioner Davis.

I would just like to to know whether an applicant, if an account applicant says, I would want you to put this in the packet.

Will you do that?

Um so if if they um yes, we c we can if it's given before.

Um I was not asked to put it in in the in the uh report um to explain process.

Let's say someone comes in to submit a and wants to speak, whether in support in or in opposition, they might have a letter, they might have a photo.

Staff usually doesn't check what people want to present as part of the applicant's material.

We're only in control of what we put in the report, whether it's the draft or final.

Um we typically don't regulate what they present at the commission, whether it's a public comment, letter of support, um, they just show up, sign up to speak, and uh they're allowed to document to show what whatever documents they feel necessary, as long as it's um it it might affect commission depending on you.

But in this case, it was just a different style of rendering.

Thank you.

Yes, maybe.

Mr.

Janukas, uh, we've closed the public hearing, so at this time um we will continue these deliberations, but thank you.

Um Commissioner Seidel.

Yeah, I've got a question for staff.

Is there is there anything in this application in your view that is in violation of the ordinance?

No, and that is why staff recommended approval.

Right.

In our opinion.

So that's my comment is that I I I I I kind of understand where you're what you are saying.

Um, but to create um what sort of feels like a punishment in in deferring and kicking this application down a month.

Um I don't believe is our charge here.

Let me ask this question.

We have a motion.

Um in order to um pursue that motion, I need to have a second.

Is there a second for the motion to defer?

Okay, so not hearing a second, is there another motion?

Lakely motion moves to accept staff's recommendation.

I'll second.

Any other discussions?

Okay, all in favor of the revised motion to accept staff's recommendation.

If you abstain abstain.

I'm sorry, this is Matthew Mendoza again.

Um we have a policy of no abstentions unless there is a conflict of interest in this case.

Um the deferral motion was did it not pass.

So in this case, Commissioner Brockbeck, I think your only option is be to oppose.

I have requested legal guidance on whether or not we can abstain for reasons other than conflict of interest.

I haven't received that yet.

So until such time, I abstain.

Um that legal guidance is forthcoming.

Um we can make note of your abstention just for the record at this moment, but please know that that guidance will inform you of what I just told you that you will have to oppose not abstain unless there is a conflict of interest.

Okay, thank you.

And with that, we will move on to item number four.

I would like to make a motion that we just consider items four and five together.

Okay, so there's um second.

Court see a second.

Okay.

Okay.

Um Broadway seconds, uh sorry.

Um we will um all in favor of hearing these two items presented at the same time.

We will still vote on them separately, is what I wanted to say.

All in favor of that motion.

I think any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay.

Chair Buchek and members of the commission.

This is staff person uh Yasmin Arslan.

I submit for your consideration agenda D4 at 1521 Columbia Street in Houston Heights.

This property includes a historic 1,476 one-story wood single family residence situated on a 6600 uh hundred 6600 square foot interior lot.

It is a contributing bungalow craftsman style residence constructed circuit 1925, located in Houston Heights East Historic District.

The applicant is proposing um a one-story addition at the rear of the existing structure.

It um I'm I'm trying to figure out how to combine them together.

And he's also uh proposing to build a two-story uh garage and garage apartment at the rear.

Construction of 500 six uh 569 first level rear addition to the existing house.

The applicant also wants to add skirting as the found at the foundation to be compatible.

Um removal of non-original porch columns and replacement with um porch supports consisting of brick piers with double wood columns.

Um he would like to replace the non-original aluminum window with inset and recessed wood uh windows.

Let me uh the proposed siding on the addition will be five and a half inches smooth fiber cement uh lap siding.

So staff recommends approval with conditions.

This is for the addition, that the front east elevation to feature a single tapered column at the porch rather than the proposed double column configuration.

As for the proposed garage, it's a two-story structure, detached garage and garage apartment at the rear of the property.

Um it includes an first floor garage that is 527 square feet and a second floor apartment uh with also 527 square feet.

It includes an first floor garage that is 527 square feet and a second floor apartment with also 527 square feet.

All windows to be inset and recessed.

The proposed exterior cladding for the this structure will also be five and a half inch fiber cement smooth lap siding.

Staff recommends approval and it meets Houston Heights measurable standards.

And I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

At this time I opened the public hearing.

I do have two speakers signed up for this item.

Both have indicated they are the applicant.

So I believe Sam Ginookis will make the presentation to be followed by Lisa Osborne.

Document camera, please.

Sam, Janukas Creole Design.

There are 12 examples.

You can see the example now.

The house on the top is is the existing house.

The houses on the bottom is the house, the double columns that we wanted to do on this particular house.

That's a rendering of the house from above.

There are many houses in the neighborhood.

And as you can just keep flipping through, there's a house that had a closed porch, and now this is what it looks like.

And then in the Heights book itself, there are four different houses that are celebrated, and they all have double columns.

And so I think restricting these houses to a single column when there's other examples of double columns in the neighborhood is hurts the neighborhood.

We need to be able to do something jazzy and not just a boring column.

Thank you, Mr.

Gigonicus.

I'll ask the question.

Sorry, Mr.

Giganus, there's a question for you from Mr.

Cosgrove.

Is there any pictorial evidence of what the porch look like?

Could not find a thing.

Are there any footings that indicate that it had brick columns?

No, there really aren't.

And and none of the windows are original.

They're all aluminum windows.

I mean, there's not a whole lot left of this original structure.

Even the porch looks like it was built on at a different time, but I could not find anything that would represent uh what was there before, either in the archives or you know, digging around the house itself.

And I thought that these double columns really look nice, and my client liked them, which is most important.

Now, I concern is that we're creating a false history for the house when we don't have evidence of what was previously there, we typically defer to a much simpler construction.

So maybe not the brick columns, but the but just a standard wood column.

I mean, I'm just saying, like we don't actually know, and we've created a completely different looking house.

But we don't have actual pictorial evidence of what that house may have looked like.

So with that theory, though, that means that every house that we do on the front that we can't prove what it looks like, that we just need to dumb it down.

Because I I don't think that's an option a hundred years from now, somebody will drive by the house and go out.

Look how dumb that house looks.

At least we ought to be able to do some jazzy something on the front of them, I think.

I mean, there's nothing historically significant about us putting a uh tapered column on there or the brick columns.

And they look great.

I mean, you saw it in the picture.

Thank you.

Um sorry, uh Commissioner Davis.

Right.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm looking at the sandborne map, and this is not the original front of this house to begin with.

Am I correct?

Am I wrong on that?

It's it's hard to tell.

That well, it looks like the porch went straight across.

And so then that then the porch would have been taken in on the left side.

It and it may have been duplexed at a different time because it was a duplex at one time.

So I don't know, I don't know the answer to that.

My guess is that this was originally one of the PC potentially contributing.

And our understanding was that there was going to be a process by which these when these came up, the ones that were potentially contributing to evaluate them as to whether they're potentially contribute really should have been contributing or not.

Commissioner Davis, I may have an answer to part of your question in the staff report.

There's a pink slip in there that said the house burned in 1931, which is why I think we're missing some of those details and we're seeing such a change to the front configuration of the house.

And you can definitely see those later, like the more federalist touches on the tops of the windows and everything of where this house has been remodeled.

Yeah, and the five-foot header heights.

I mean the header heights are like way down here.

Thank you.

The next speaker who has signed up is Lisa Osborne.

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

I would be happy to.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lisa Osborne, and I am the owner of 1521 Columbia Street.

I have a few remarks for you today.

I come before you, not as a developer, not as an investor, but as a woman who is starting over, and who chose the Houston Heights to do.

I recently went through a divorce.

And like many people in that season of life, I found myself asking, where do I belong now?

The answer is 1521 Columbia Street for me.

And it has been left uncared for for a very long time, and is basically unlivable.

And I didn't walk away from it.

I walked towards it.

This home needs everything.

And I am giving it everything.

My time, my resources, my money, my love, and my full commitment to doing this restoration the right way in the manner that's worthy of the historic district in this community.

The double columns on the front elevation are central to my vision for this porch.

I see myself there as an old lady drinking my coffee and interacting with my neighbors.

There are not an afterthought.

They're a deliberate design choice that I believe honors a character and charm that defines a heights.

And as you saw, there are many examples of this in the neighborhood.

It signals to neighbors and passers by that this home is cared for and that someone is invested in it and that it will contribute to the streetscape for the next hundred years.

I asked this commission to see what I see in this project.

Not just a rehabilitation of a structure, but the restoration of a home.

And the beginning of my life as a permanent community contributor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have anyone else sign up to speak on this item that I'm aware, but if you are here in the audience and would like to say something about this application, please announce yourself at this time.

Not hearing anyone, I will close the public hearing and open, uh, ask commission members if there are any questions of staff on this application.

I have a question of staff.

Commissioner Hill.

So uh there are two renderings in here of the facade of the garage, and they each show different windows above the garage door.

Was wondering which is correct.

We're talking about the garage application.

Yes.

So there's um on page 12 of 22, there's a 3D rendering of the garage and the house, which shows paired windows that appear to be probably similar to the size of the windows that are on the main house.

And then on page 17 of 22, there is a front elevation that shows three different sized windows.

Do you want to respond, Mr.

Gianukos?

Yes, Sam, you can respond.

Uh when we initially submitted the drawings to Yasmine, the the had transom windows above the garage, and then when I met with her, she said we can't do those transom windows, you're gonna have to do a window that's more like what's on the house, and that's why the the difference, because the initial submittal had transoms, the final submittal has a full window.

Thank you.

And for the record, the comment was made by Sam Genogis.

Yes, you know, there is anything else you want to add?

Are there any other questions of staff?

Commissioner Broadwick, please.

Yes.

Can staff verify that those homes are all actually in the same district?

I I need to know the address.

But we're not saying that there are there's nothing that has double columns, but we general when we're when we don't know how this house looked like, we go with the majority.

And the majority are single tapered columns.

So we're not saying they're invisible that or they don't exist.

But I haven't verified that they are in the district to answer your question.

Okay, thank you.

So for my colleagues on the commission, this kind of makes my point.

We were being shown photos for the very first time by the applicant, and the applicant is representing that they're in the immediate area.

We would need an opportunity to verify that they're in the immediate area.

We can't do that tonight.

I have a question for staff.

Yes.

Can you explain uh the rationale of rejecting the double column?

Maybe I'm sorry if you explained it before.

Um staff's point of view, we go with the more uh simple version and what's on the majority of the historic contributing structures in the historic district.

We are not saying that there are no historic homes that have the double column, but the majority uh do not.

And so again, because there's no proof that there were double columns, um, we we go with a more simple version.

I'm I'm torn, I have to say, because I appreciate that uh rationale.

At the same time, if someone wants to make is I heard the sort of false history argument as well.

And if the majority are not double, then it wouldn't be suggesting a false history to use double columns because uh that's rare, right?

So I just wanted to put that out there.

Commissioner Davis.

I'd look I just like to confirm I live in the heights and I can confirm that there are definitely double columns in the heights.

Um I don't agree with going to the most simple form.

The heights is incredibly eclectic.

There are at least, I don't know, 10 or 15 different styles of houses in the heights.

And if we apply this the standard, we're gonna end up with something that is doesn't represent who we were.

It makes it more cookie-cutter, more and people will be able to walk by and go, they did apply for that.

That that's the only thing that they would let them do.

So I would like to just support what the applicant wants.

Can you can I ask a question of staff?

Can you describe, or is there a a blown-up drawing of the proposed double columns?

Because uh just just as a matter of reference.

I mean, one of the ways to avoid a false past when you have an element um that is based on traditional configuration is to abstract that those elements nonetheless so that from the street it may it may be a double column, but but uh on close inspection it may be very straight, square, um lacking any sort of like overtly traditional detailing so that it gives the appearance that it is of our time new, but at the same time conveys a sense of um of of the two columns.

It's it's it's not a for my experience is not a black and white uh answer to it every every case is its own case.

But um I'm I'm kind of curious when we look at this from a distance for these drawings.

I don't know if there's some way to simplify the detailing up close and personal um where there's not a lot of trim or or historic molding applied, but it's more of a square it's really through abstraction is the way that you satisfy this criteria essentially.

Um it's it's the detailing or the lack that kind of simplify the detailing.

I don't know that it's necessarily one column versus two columns at the end of the day.

I mean, one could make a could make a case with two columns if if the two columns were very abstract and simple and square and square, like S4S we would call that in in Cabinetry World.

Um but so I'm just curious what is the level of detailing uh for the proposed columns in in the submission.

Can you go to the front elevation?

I'm sorry, not the garage, the addition.

This this is the proposal and um the level of details that shown on the front of you you got it, Samantha.

Just uh No.

Fifty 1521.

The front elevation for 1521, not the garage, the addition, you were there.

Maybe we can just maybe we could just enlarge the image.

Yes, Commissioner Blakely.

Um maybe it's a question for the architects on the commission, but we're we've been going back and forth about double or single columns, but the other sort of big move here is adding the column near that side of the building, because in the uh photo it only has a column on the corner.

So I think that it's natural that that other column was added.

But that's actually a more major change than the question of double or single to my mind.

So you're uh are you talking about on the corner of the of the porch itself having an additional column behind that column?

Or am I misunderstanding?

So the portion of the facade, the edge of the facade by the porch, there are columns there.

Right.

Whereas in the original house, there's no column there.

There's only a column at the corner.

Yeah, there's a lot of things.

I think it makes sense.

And it's not yet I think it's logical that you would put you would frame the entrance, the porch.

That's what I intended.

And by the way, we're going to do inch and three-quarter bed mold on the top of those six by sixes.

Very simple.

Uh Commissioner Davis, you have a question.

Not to be argumentative, but if I were looking at this house, I would say that this is a minimal traditional house that was built after, and so I would have said it was minim minimal traditional, which it was not built to be minimal traditional.

So adding simple just emphasizes that.

So I'm thinking that that's contrary to what we want to do.

Sorry, you but your um your comment based on the application.

You're supportive of the application or there's or you I'm not supportive of the condition.

I I am supportive of the um the applicant's desire to put the columns on the court on the porch.

Okay.

Commissioner Seidel.

Similar question for staff is the proposed double columns on top of the brick bases in any sort of violation of the ordinance, or is this just we feel like we should do a simpler column?

No.

If you can go to criteria.

Again, staff believes that it does not meet criteria seven.

Can you go there?

Oh my god.

Um with approval with conditions, it's it's uh a bit complicated.

We don't put it as dissatisfy because the condition that staff has put makes it satisfies, and that is why.

And if sta commission would like it to change, then we can change that.

Talking about if your recommendation is is approval with conditions, you're incorporating those conditions into satisfy, do not satisfy, correct?

We should, yes.

Okay.

I don't think we need to waste time talking that over.

I don't think we need to waste time talking that over the I think Commissioner Blakely.

Part of the problem seems to be that we don't know what the original house facade looked like.

If we did, then what we have is what's apparently what was rebuilt after a fire, which may not be what the original design was.

So it seems that uh we can't really satisfy criterion seven, which says that the replacement of feature should be based on accurate uh duplication, substantiated by available historical, physical or pictorial evidence.

So I I would I would be inclined to support the applicant in this case, although I'm I'm sympathetic to the staff recommendation.

Well, I mean I may say you could recommend double columns, but that the base and the capital be squared, squared off and abstracted so that they don't reflect a historic profile section.

So from the right-of-way it looks just like the drawing shows it in the application.

Um that is a way that that abstraction, which I mentioned earlier, that's how the Texas World Commission would look at projects that were being reviewed for say tax credit projects, and they adhering to the same, you know, they're they're they're they're they're adhering to standards which are what ours are based on, but this same pulse pass is part of that review as well.

So um it's really in the details where some of this gets uh worn out from my experience.

So if you wanted to make a motion to accept the double column configuration, you could also suggest that the ornamentation be abstracted for the capital on the base, because that's the only that's the only thing on it other than the straight, the two straight columns that being sub, you know, submitted.

But I mean it it's but it's your call.

I mean it's the I'm saying there there's there's there's some deference that we anyone has on this commission to make it.

I I would I suppose I would be concerned that we were stipulating design if we say either double column or not double column.

So maybe it's just maybe that's not quite the right word.

Well, I mean i uh we won't design it from here, I I don't believe.

But I mean you uh a motion could be crafted that gives staff the ability to work that out if nonetheless.

I mean, I think there's been a lot of talk today about whether there's a single column or double column.

Yeah, I think I'm I personally think this commission, you've seen a drawing of double column, the commission I think could make a vote up or down to support a double column.

I'm just saying if in terms of what staff is the reason that they recommend a single column because there is no proof of what it was, as Commissioner Cosgrove said.

Um that can be somewhat remedied by abstracting what trim is utilized to be more abstracted, which means that it not have a bed mold, you know, design.

So that it is it that it'd be more square, you know more, you know, in terms of um of our time satisfies that that criteria.

Commissioner Broadbett?

Oh, sorry.

Please, sir.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um I think the double columns are beautiful.

Um Ms.

Osborne, I I think you have a great vision for the House.

Um, but we can't prove what it was originally, which is why whether or not there are examples of it in the immediate area matters.

And the applicant made that an issue by showing us those pictures.

So pending verification that those pictures really are in the immediate area, I would be inclined to support the double columns and the rest of the application, but I'd like to be able to verify it.

So maybe we defer or maybe we approve it all, pending verification of the double columns.

Those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

Commissioner Garcia, you had a question?

If we if we don't have the the historical evidence on this, you know, we we look to um the vernacular, the air area, you know, what if does it maintain or does it present the elements, historic elements, um the scale and proportion of the houses around there, the historical um aspect.

And I think it does.

You know, if the if the two columns, you know, it's all massing.

So you you can have two call two six by six columns the same as a 12-inch uh tapered to an eight-inch um corner column.

So it's all scale and proportion as long as it doesn't um conflict with that, and and I think it would be an eye source or the the picture we see um with the single column, obviously it's out of scale and proportion.

So you can tell that that obviously wasn't original.

But um I I'm inclined to support the to support the um staff's recommendation on this.

Is there in the context area, which would be the block face?

This is for the staff.

Are there any double columns?

I worked on so many staff reports I don't remember honestly.

So these are I tried to include context area to show you the immediate neighbors of that particular house.

Um I haven't seen when I was looking, I didn't see um a house with double column that is close.

It doesn't mean they don't exist, but close to that house on that area and there were multiple contributing structures.

I didn't see one with a double column.

Can you go to the next page?

Uh I can be wrong, but I'm showing Google street views.

Um what's and yeah, like uh again.

Most of them are one column.

So is the context.

Again, because we are we don't know for sure, there's no image that shows how it was historically.

Staff um recommended it that it be one.

There if you if you keep your side.

Okay.

So I'm a n I believe the north.

I don't know if I'm I I didn't orientate myself on the other.

This is Commissioner Jones.

So I don't think for me the double columns isn't the issue.

It's it's looking at a house that burned down in 1931 before we have a photograph of it that was kind of turned more minimal traditional.

And so how how far back do we take it to the 1920s?

And personally, uh double columns fine, but maybe a simplified look at it, right?

So you're still doing a nod to the craftsman history of the house, but you're not leaning into it, right?

You're not building a false history of the house.

You're still nodding that this house has a history to it that has it now in its present form.

I mean I mean to me, we don't know what the original was.

The original could have had double columns.

So that's how I'm thinking about it.

Yes, we're a motion.

Well, is there a motion?

Uh Garcia, a motion to approve staff's recommendations.

Okay.

Wait a second.

With the double columns and approve the um the garage as well with the conditions, staff conditions.

Okay.

So it's a the motion is to approve for item four.

The motion is to assume to recommend approval of staff's recommendation with the condition and also for item five to approve the proposed garage.

Correct.

Okay.

And is there a second to that motion?

I I think it's you're you're in support of the double columns.

You're in support of approving it as a drawn.

I'm in support of the staff recommendation.

Is staff's recommendations go into a single column?

Is is that your recommendation?

No, I didn't uh apologize.

I I I um may I rephrase that?

It is not a second, so your yes.

Yes, uh Garcia, in support of item four with the double columns.

Okay.

Staff's recommendations and the double columns.

So approval as is.

May we show the the front elevation just to verify?

So approval as submitted by by applicants.

By the applicant, is my understanding of the motion.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

Side L seconds.

Any other discussion before we call the vote?

I would like to uh propose a friendly amendment.

Could we set aside the double columns pending verification that there really are some in the immediate area?

And if there are, great, move forward.

If not, it would come back to us.

Do you guys have Google Street January 2020 1543 Columbia?

I'm looking at it.

Do what?

Well, yeah, they look like they're old and houses in trouble, but there are 17 in the area.

I'm happy to give the addresses to the audience that you'd like.

Okay.

I will retract the friendly amendment.

I'm satisfied.

Okay.

All in favor of the motions for both items four and five.

Um staff has a request.

Is there any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay.

Um items D 10, 11, 12, and 13.

Um they would like to move to the top to be presented now.

Um, and then we can go back to item the the rest of the items.

But is there a motion to move items 10, 11, 12, and 30.

Cosgrove moves to move items 10, 11, 12, 13.

To the current position on the agenda, and that we would consider them all together.

Is there a second?

Joan seconds.

All in favor?

I me opposed.

Okay.

Please proceed.

All right, let's bring some excitement into this thing right now.

Um before I get started, um I'm gonna present these as one item.

Um it's four individual COAs.

So as mentioned before, items D 10, D11, D12, and D 13.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the HHC.

This is staff person Terrence Jackson, and today I submit to you items D 10, D11, D12, and D13 at 1108 Victor Street.

The property includes a four forty-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight square foot corner lot, and currently includes three historic one-story single-family residences.

The properties are Southern Colonial Style landmarks built circa 1921.

The original houses retains the original one over one windows and mostly the original siding.

I'm sorry, one of the houses has two over two windows.

All which have seen a vast amount of deterioration over the years.

The first COA D 10 is for the relocation of properties, which can be seen in the provided site plans.

The remaining COAs, D11, D-12, and D13 is for the alteration of the three structures on the site.

The applicant proposes interior and exterior renovations, including repair existing siding as needed with income interiors materials, repair existing wood windows, replace existing windows that are that are beyond repair, replacement windows are to match the existing light pattern and original opening.

All new windows to be in set and recessed, see attachment.

Modify the finestration patterns of some openings to accommodate for the proposed use.

Replace the roof with composition shingles and add skylights to each structure.

Repair and replace existing trim, corner trim, and facial boards, repair and replace window and door casings, construct a rear deck that will connect the three historic properties and construct an ADA ramp at the sides.

They will also relocate all three structures, see the details in the report and the contractors to stabilize all foundations prior to relocation.

Staff recommends approval.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

At this time I open the public hearing.

Good afternoon.

I am the executive director for the Houston Freedmanstown Conservancy.

But good afternoon to the chair, commissioners, and staff uh who are serving on this committee.

Um today I am joined uh by our partners, the Contemporary Arts Museum, Houston co-directors, uh Ryan and Ryan Dennis and Melissa Luan.

First, I want just want to take this time to um thank you all for your time, care, and thoughtful review you have given to our work.

We are grateful to the City of Houston for our ongoing support and partnership as we steward um the preservation, protection, and revitalization of Freedmanstown.

As you all may know, Freedmanstown is the oldest African American settlement in Houston post-emancipation.

It stands as a living monument to the resilience, craftsmanship, and self-determination of people who built the community brick by brick.

Every project is rooted in honoring that legacy and ensuring its authenticity indoors.

This um adaptive reuse project is significant not only to the Freemanstown community but also to the City of Houston.

It continues the preservation driven revitalization that began with the opening of the Freedmanstown Visitor Center in 2024.

So today's proposal project strengthens that momentum and deepens our commitment to cultural preservation.

This space um that we're talking about, a project that we're talking about right now, um, not only protect and uplifts the authenticity of the neighborhood, it preserves the legacy and history of the ancestors who built it.

Um it creates a cultural hub that intentionally serves the community and Mount Horeb uh Missionary Baptist Church.

Um it will shape a future where descendants and future generations can see themselves reflected in this project.

Um this project is a strong example of civic arts partnership, highlighting the capabilities of cultural and art institutions working together.

We are excited to honor the vision of the ancestors and descendants of Freedmanstown.

This project is more than about the buildings, it is about memory identity and the future of community, the future of the community of Freedmanstown.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I don't have anyone else sign up to speak on this item.

I know there are a few more people in the audience here in support of the application, I can see, but is there anyone else that would like to uh say a few words about the application?

Okay, not hearing anyone, we'll close the public hearing.

Um Commissioner members, are there questions of staff about the application of these projects?

Numbers 10, 11, 12, and 13.

I have two questions.

Commissioner Hill.

Are the replacement windows, the new windows, going to be wood sashes?

And um Do you feel like the turn columns were the original columns that were on these structures?

Uh so thank you for asking the question.

Uh the um the columns question.

No, we don't think they were original, but that's what's out there now, and I think the architects were just trying to um match what was out there now.

I would be more than happy to recommend that they just use a 8 by 8 or 6x6.

Um I think it looks better.

Um would the architect be open to such a change as far as change the columns?

Yep.

Or so the architect would be uh would accept making such a change.

Um as far as the windows.

Um right now the plan is to have the uh all the windows refurbished.

However, um the majority of the windows are in really, really bad shape, so they may not be able to be shaved.

Um so what we are recommending, what we have recommended to the architect is to um go with a wood or wood clad window as long as it matches the profile.

But that is the plan, yes, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Davis.

Just a question.

Um you recommended a change from there, and he accepted, and I understand that, but we approved it as is.

Is he or you are recommending approval?

Yeah, so we have the you guys have the ability to recommend approval with conditions.

So we can make that a condition.

Right.

You're suggesting we make it a condition.

Because I didn't know.

Well, I mean, they don't have to.

Where did that come up?

Did I miss that?

Well, Commissioner Hill asked if those were the original columns.

Okay.

Um my response to him was that they are not the original columns, and staff would be fine with um changing the columns to a six by six or an eight by eight if the architect was inclined or felt inclined to do so.

And the architect said that he was fine with doing so.

So that's where that came from.

But that would he asked a question.

He didn't ask you to change anything.

But be okay with keeping the college.

I I am just asking why.

Terrence, do you want to change the columns as opposed to what has been presented there?

I don't, that's what I don't get.

Because those columns are not original.

Well, I understand they're not original, but I think nobody on the commission suggested that he changed them.

And so I don't know why we aren't approving this as the as originally requested, since unless I missed it, nobody on the board asked him to change anything.

Would you consider changing the columns to six by six?

Treated.

Is it for the report for the architect?

For the record, would it be appropriate for the architect to uh just announce himself in the microphone just for uh the viewers that are not here and watching?

I'm gonna open up the public hearing again.

Good afternoon, Chair, good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Gregory Lake, uh, the architect of this project with Heinz AD.

And so the question was um if you Commissioner, I would restate your question.

Yes, would you consider the columns on these three houses uh to be uh six by six treated pine?

Maybe not the treated pine, but maybe in kind, let me be like a cedar.

That's more yes, absolutely, not a problem.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would just like to say one more thing is I don't think we're supposed to be designing from up here.

And I think that that is a design change that I would say if he wants to do that, but I don't think that we should be suggesting that.

I think it's uh slightly different from a design change.

It's um it's a question just based on like even if the column wasn't originally that column specifically was the original column looking like the existing column that's in the package for for the question was whether or not it was original, and would the original have been different?

I think the Commission has you have some deference to I I guess on this issue, it's where the consensus of this body comes in terms of the column whether to accept the column in the application or to ask the applicant to abstract the column, which is kind of basically what was stated.

Um you could ask the architect what he would prefer to do and what he would prefer that the commission vote on uh, for instance.

But because he's he would like to ask him.

I mean, what is your preference on the columns?

So our preference would be to maintain what what we know of the project is what we see now.

So we would like to keep it as close to what we see right now as possible.

That would be my preference.

You are welcome.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions of staff?

Is there make a motion?

I'll make a motion to accept staff's recommendations for items 10, 11, 12, and 13.

And that's as they were presented in the package.

As they were presented in the packet.

Okay.

Is there a second to that motion?

Courtsi, a second.

Is there any other discussion before we call the vote?

All in favor of the vote?

Aye.

Thank you.

Anyone opposed to the vote?

Motion passes.

Moving on.

Uh moving on, I believe, to item number six.

Chair Buchek and members of the Commission, this is Staff Person Yasmin Arslan.

I submit for your consideration agenda item D6 at 405 Highland Street, Woodland Heights.

The property includes a um historic 2,261 house on a 5,000 square foot interior lot.

It is a contributing craftsman bungalow residence constructed circa 1920 in the Woodland Heights Historic District.

A detached two and a half um story garage has been approved at the rear of the lot on May 2020.

The applicant proposes a second floor addition to the existing one-story contributing structure.

The addition consists of two roof masses, a primary five over twelve mass at twenty-seven feet and six inches, spanning the full width and extending over more than fifty percent of the footprint from the rear.

A secondary five over twelve mass uh with a ridge height of twenty six feet extends over the front fifty percent of the contributing house.

Staff recommend um uh the staff recommends denial as it does not satisfy criteria ten and eleven.

Staff received 35 letters of support from the public and received a letter from uh Woodland Heights Civic Association in support of the project.

Thank you.

At this time I will open the public hearing.

And I have a number of speakers for this item.

Um a number that have also indicated they are the applicant.

So Ariel Prager.

Yes, thank you.

My name is Ariel Pragner.

I am the homeowner, homeowner and the applicant.

Brevity is not my strong suit, so I'm going to speak quickly.

Please feel free to ask me to stop.

We've owned this house since 2010.

We've lived there for 16 years.

We love this community.

We truly value living in a historic community.

I appreciate the work you all do in keeping this looking like a historic and feeling like a historic community and preserving the historic feeling of the neighborhood.

Our needs have changed since we initially bought the house.

We now have two small children.

I have an adult sister with severe intellectual disabilities living with me.

My mother-in-law looks with us.

This is the second time you're hearing crying today.

So this house simply does not meet our needs anymore.

But we do not want the maximum square footage.

You heard that we're asking for less than 700 square feet.

We have consulted our neighbors about this.

Your packet says 35 letters.

There are more than 50 neighbors who have signed on to this.

It has strong neighbor support.

There are it right here.

386 homes in our community.

45 of those homes have asked you guys to support this.

That's more than 12 percent.

Um and I had so many people offered to be here today, but couldn't be if they had known that it was going to be 430, they might have been here.

Um but I would also like to address the two points that staff addressed on our proposal.

First, they said we didn't meet um the criteria for massing size and scale.

Our edition is compatible with both our home and the block.

There are 13 homes on our block face.

Eight of them are two stories or higher.

We are directly next doors to a beautiful three-story Queen Anne.

Um we are only asking for 670 square feet.

That's only a 33 percent change from our existing square footage.

I looked at what this commission has approved since January of 2025 in the Woodland Heights.

Every single edition has approved between 50 percent and 207 percent.

We are staying exactly on the footprint.

We are not moving our distance from the property line at all, which is the second thing that was addressed in the staff report.

I am begging y'all to allow us to stay in this home.

We will not be able to stay in the woodland heights if you don't allow us to do this.

Thank you.

Sorry.

The next speaker is Sam Gianukis, followed by Martina Stevens.

Sam Janukas Creole Design.

Uh this house uh has an existing staircase.

It currently has a uh a finished out second floor in the attic that's conditioned.

And I know the kids could uh y'all don't really police inside of houses, the interiors, but the existing staircase location is can you show this?

The existing staircase location is right at the front of the house.

And if we were to move it back, it would only destroy historic materials.

Uh the commission criteria section 33241 directs us not to destroy historic material.

We're we are here we are honoring that principle by designing around that constraint that we have by leaving the staircase where it is so we don't have to destroy any of the house.

She loves her house, if you can't tell, and doesn't want to tear up anything or relocate a staircase to get further back into the house.

And is since it already has a staircase, which you can see there, we're using that existing staircase.

The second floor massing could be removed.

Whatever we do, what we're doing there now is inset from the side walls.

And so if you decided that you wanted to remove it and go back to just an attic space up there, it's it's removable.

I know that's something that's that we always talk about, not that anybody is ever going to do it, but uh I just feel like that this house isn't any more uh here.

Is a 3D rendering of the side of the house.

Here's a well first lesson front.

Here's the front.

That's with the addition, by the way.

You can barely see this is from the corner, barely see the addition.

This is a side addition.

Right there.

And then I'll show you one that was approved on Byrne Street.

That was on consent agenda, by the way.

And so it uh it was at uh 504 504 Byrne Street.

And so I don't feel like that because of the restraint with the staircase and not destroying any more historical materials inside the house, as you know, moving the a staircase back is destroy it, that this was a good solution for this house.

Thank you.

Again, the next speaker is Martina Stevens, followed by Sam Stevens.

Presentation mode.

Uh thank you so much.

Uh my name is Martina Stevens.

I am here as a neighbor in support for this project.

Um the Pragner family is uh valuable to our community.

They're the life of that entire block, and they have unique sit uh circumstances uh in their family with multi-generations living with them.

And I also wanted to say that um we support the design as is as opposed to some of the previous uh recommendations uh to have like a cantilever hanging out over the side.

Um the 50 percent over the allowance is not um something that we feel is unattractive from the front of the house.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, noon again.

I'm Sam Stevens, uh another neighbor here to verify what uh Ms.

Bragner has said about the neighborhood support that she's gone around the neighborhood, everyone has seen the renderings, and no one thinks that it's something that that stands out amongst uh the Woodland Heights neighborhood, especially with some of the mass of houses we see in the neighborhood, that her additional 700 square feet is just not something that contradicts the historical characteristics of the House.

And again, the way they're doing it by preserving the staircase, the the neighborhood and the neighborhood um deed restriction uh director Julie Moore supports that uh it's it's the appropriate way to do that for them to stay in the house.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um is there anyone else in the uh audience who would like to speak about this um project?

I'm sorry, there's not a rebuttal if if if no one speaks against your project, I'm sorry there's not a not a rebuttal.

But no one is speaking but um there could still be time.

But they have to stand up and announce themselves.

But um but if anyone else does want to speak on this item, regardless of you know, for or against, they uh please announce yourself at this time not hearing anyone, I will close the public hearing.

Um, Commission members, are there questions of staff on this application or the massing that they referred to?

I have a question for staff.

Um could someone more thoroughly explain to us your concerns around um criteria 10 massing.

Yes, so typically the second floor stays towards the rear, towards the 50 percent rear.

Um, the design submitted as is um does not it encroaches the there are two masses.

An addition that is closer that than 50 feet, that's the bigger mass, and then the second mass is also within the first 50 percent of the house.

So um we typically don't um approve second story additions like that.

Um and so within the context area, yes, there are two-story homes, um, but nothing with an addition that is that close to the front.

So that's what Seth uh saw.

Okay, of course there is a shall approve in the ordinance which allows you to build it 50 percent if you don't build back or sideways, um, which you you're allowed to build to the walls, but basically, um, but it's it's only a shall approve if you if you um meet that meet that restriction, if you will.

Um anything other I mean the the the first mass itself may might be treated differently if it were a dormer that was independent of the rear addition, so that I mean dormers are encouraged, at least in the heights, and uh this is a neighborhood that does not have design guidelines, but it is um after Nor Hill, I believe it is next on the uh agenda to receive uh design guidelines, and so certain aspects can also be resolved with input from from the residents of this neighborhood.

But at this time, um part of the issue is my as I'm saying it is that the forward dormer is actually part of the rear mass, it's contiguous to that.

I believe it has to do with the stair that was mentioned um uh in in from the public comment.

One other question for staff, please.

With respect to criteria 11, can staff tell me by how much the uh applied setbacks that are in the application exceed what would be acceptable to staff or what would have earned your recommendation.

Okay.

Um if if you see that the second story encroaches on the 50 percent, the big mass, okay.

And so and then the smaller mass encroaches even further.

And and that that is why we would have put conditions if we can or ask them to to push it if it was only the bigger mass.

But because there are two, um it was it was very far off from what we can approve.

We did um uh we we've had a pre-design.

Um she uh welcomed us um to her home for a pre-design uh to see the situation.

Um we we uh asked if it can be switched to a dormer.

So if the bigger mass was at the 50 percent, that would have been like a shall approve.

So it would have been approved administratively.

And then um maybe she can put a dormer instead of the second mass, but she said that doesn't meet um what she needs uh out of that house to stay in it.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Are there additional questions of staff?

Commissioner Bailey.

Did I miss the part of the presentation?

Can I just jump in?

You you don't you don't you're not uh you don't have a conflict with the project, so yeah.

Um I am just wondering if the the sort of lot coverage of the proposed edition was taken into account because something that I notice is that if they pulled the whole two-story edition back, they could with it the they would be able to take up more of the yard, right?

So we might think about this as a trade-off between coming a little bit far forward forward or covering more of the lot.

And I I think in that respect, that might be a kind of a virtue of this proposal that it doesn't take up more of the space of the buildable area.

Yeah.

Any other questions of staff or comments?

Commissioner Davis?

Okay.

Okay, please.

Um I would like to make a motion to approve the drawings.

I don't know how to state this.

I am I think that we should approve the drawings as they were submitted, taking in since we're taking into consideration a lot of different factors, all extremely valued, val valuable.

So um my moot my motion is help me with it.

So how do we you can make a motion to accept the application as submitted by the applicant?

Um so move.

Okay.

Is there a second to that motion?

Commissioner Mark Smith, are you you have a question or your second?

I am second.

Okay, you are seconding.

Okay.

Any other discussions before we call the vote?

Yeah.

I I do I've I've got a question for the applicant, uh probably specifically the applicant's architect.

Sam Januk is creative design.

Um is the only reason that we're I mean, we're clearly violating that 50 percent situation.

And and I can't see any other reason why we would be doing that, save for keeping the stairwell where it is.

Exactly.

The minute we have to move that staircase, we're tear tearing out historic material.

And and uh loves that old house, and it looks fantastic inside.

So the minute we move that staircase back, we're we're tearing out all that historic material.

And and that's why we didn't do that.

But I need head height for my for uh city code.

Right now it's only six foot there at that point.

And so we needed a little bit more head height.

And I dropped the plate heights down as far as I could to give us the head height.

It really was to preserve the rest of the house.

And all of that, all of that material that we're putting on that adds that second floor, if somebody wants to remove it in the future and go back to an attic, they can go back to an attic.

But right now, that is the cleanest way to get to that second floor, and it already exists, and we don't have to tear up that old house, which is fantastic inside, tall ceilings, great moldings.

The minute we have to move that uh back, it just it it just compromises the whole house and all the historic material that we're taught.

We're trying to preserve.

Yeah, and cost and not only that, it costs per really that that is why that is that way.

Thank you.

Any other discussions before we call the vote on the motions?

Uh yes, I I'd like to point out that while I empathize with the applicant um with respect to uh the challenges caused by having to potentially move around things on the interior.

Interior elements are outside the purview of this commission, and we can't consider that as part of our decision making.

Thank you.

Okay.

All in favor of the motion as as was seconded.

Aye.

Okay.

All opposed?

Opposed?

Jones.

Broad deck.

Okay, so that motion does not pass.

Is there another motion?

Or a motion to defer?

Motion to approve staff recommendations.

Uh Yasmin, can you could you restate your recommendation for the record?

Staff recommends denial.

Okay.

Is there a second for the motion to for denial?

I am not getting a second for that motion.

Is there a motion to defer?

I would like an up or down vote, please.

Second.

Point of order, Mr.

Chair.

Um applicants can't demand outcomes.

We don't want to defer.

That's unfair to the first one.

Point of order?

Understand.

Um for Jones.

You made the motion?

How do we made the motion?

You made the second.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

What's the motion now?

The motion is to defer.

Is to defer.

Defer.

To defer.

All in favor of deferring.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Aye.

Can I just add something?

It does nothing to defer.

There deferring this does nothing for the applicant because it they're not going to change their opinion over this next month.

So to defer is just adding more pain and suffering.

It's so I just want to to vote be on the record saying that I don't think that we should be deferring in opposition to what the applicant wanted.

I'll just point out there was a motion to accept staff's recommendation of denying, and it was not seconded.

So that vote could not occur without a second.

So the motion failed to you know to approve that the application uh as submitted.

So the only other motion we have is to defer.

Which I which passed.

Would it make sense to indicate might help make a difference next time?

Or would we just go through the same thing again?

I think uh uh Yasmin stated very clearly for staff's point of view if the second floor edition started at the 50 percent line, and if the dormer in front of like in front of the 50 percent line was detached from the from the second floor mass, then staff then staff wouldn't could look at that dormer as not a second floor edition.

Um the issue is it's it's attached to it, so it's reading as part of the mass itself.

So I think that's the that's a recognition from staff as was stated, as I as I understand it.

Am I correct?

Yes, that is correct.

She has um she she was uh okay.

She has her master bedroom in the attic, I believe.

Um and so because of where that staircase is.

Um we went on a pre-design and we try to explore other options.

To her, nothing works because she wants that staircase to remain because the house is original on the interior.

And unfortunately, we we regulate the exterior.

So the addition as is we haven't approved that and and the context area doesn't have something that that encroaches that much.

Um she also wants her uh first floor uh footprint to remain the same, the original structure she did not want to add to that.

She also have a has a um a functional cute backyard that she would also need to remain.

So that is the only um proposal that she is um okay with and as is staff felt um that it did not meet criteria.

So we try to work um with her.

Sure.

The only other way I know is to uh use steel to make the the ceiling joys, which are in fact now floor joys, if you will, uh not as tall, and to figure out how to make the rafters not as deep, although these homes weren't built with very tall members for attics for or for ceiling.

So I do want to mention that you see this now, but there's a lot of work before it.

I personally went on a site visit, and then when I saw that this was a difficult situation, I also invited um Chair Buchek to offer his expertise and see how we can help the applicant.

Um we will be moving on.

Um Chair Chair Buchek.

Um can I address um one of the Commissioner's statements?

Um this uh sort of business of interjecting while the commissioners are deliberating for an up or down vote.

That's very improper, so we just request that that not happened any longer.

If you make that statement while you have your speaking time, that's your um that's at your liberty.

Um Commissioners, you are not obligated to give an up or down vote if uh applicant asks.

You have the deference to approve, deny, defer.

Um so you can do that up or down vote, but it's not um any obligation from the applicant.

Um so that practice we need to curtail that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we're now moving on to items 7 and 8.

And I may need a motion to uh have 7 and 8 presented uh together.

I'll move that we present seven and eight together.

Second.

All in favor?

I please proceed.

Chair Buchek and member as of the Commission, this is staff person Yasmin Arslan.

I submit for your consideration item D7 at 607 Harvard Street in Houston Heights South.

The property includes a 2,0100 square foot two-story brick single family residence situated on a 13,002 square feet corner lot.

It also has a um one and a half story garage at the rear.

It is a contributing Queen Anne style residence constructed circa 1915 in the Houston Heights South Historic District.

The proposal to the main um house is to um build a two-story addition.

The existing two-story single family um um residence.

Um it will have no changes to the existing basement, which is very interesting.

It has a it has a basement.

Um, and they will be replacing non-original windows as shown on the elevations.

The applicant proposes removal of non-original stucco from the front elevation and wraparound porch, restoring um those areas to how they were um originally.

The applicant proposes to um build a first uh floor rear addition that is 571 square feet and a 644 second floor um rear addition.

The original corner will be maintained on the north elevation.

Original corner on south elevation um was not maintained part of the design submitted.

Um staff recommends approval with conditions to NSET for two feet at the original corner on the south elevation facing uh White Oak Street.

That's for the addition.

As for um item D eight, also at 607 Harvard, pertaining to alterations to the non-contributing garage.

The applicant is proposing an addition uh to the existing um uh garage apartment at 607 Harvard.

The structure uh currently contains 1,000 um 33 square feet of uh conditioned space.

The proposal includes adding 145 square feet on the first level and uh removing one sixty-nine square feet from the second level.

The new roof will match um house original um eight over twelve with the eve height uh being um max of eighteen feet and four inches.

Um increasing the ridge height to twenty seven feet.

Staff recommends approval with conditions that the ridge height of the structure be uh twenty-six feet to meet measurable Houston Heights measurable standards for accessory structures.

And I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

At this time I open the public hearing on this item.

Um I do have one speaker signed up for this item, which is Sam Janukas.

Uh Sam Janukas Creole Design.

I was under impression this was going to be on consent agenda, so I really don't have anything unless you all have questions for me.

I'm happy to answer them.

Thank you.

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

Not hearing anyone out close the public hearing.

Are there any questions from the Commission of Staff?

Or is there a motion or a motion to accept staff's recommendations for items seven and eight?

Motion to accept staff's recommendations.

Conscript seconds.

Okay.

All in favor of both seven and eight recommendations of staff.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, that passes.

We're moving on, I believe, to now.

Item 14.

I can almost say good evening, so in 10 more minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the HAC.

This is Staff Person Terence Jackson.

That's a submit to you item D 14 at 815 West Cottage Street in the Nor Hill Historic District.

The property includes a 1,606 square foot one-story wood frame single family bungalow style residence constructed circa 1925 and a detached garage situated on a 5,005 square foot interior lot.

The applicant raised the home to have a 39-inch finished floor height without a COA.

Thus causing damage to the contributing trip chimney of the home.

The applicant is proposing to remove one eight-inch block to give the home a finished floor height of 31 inches above grade.

Staff recommends denial of a COA and issuance of a COR for work performed without a certificate of appropriateness.

Staff also recommends that the application remove the brick from the chimney prior to lowering the home.

Once the lowering is complete, the applicant must rebuild the chimney as it was prior to the damage with the existing contributing brick.

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

Thank you.

At this time I'll open the public hearing.

Is there anyone here to speak on this item for the public?

I do not have anyone signed up for this item.

She doesn't want to speak unless there are questions.

Okay.

I'll close the public hearing.

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

If there are no questions, is there a recommendation or for uh or motion?

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

Is there a second?

Commissioner Jones seconds.

All in favor?

I am do we have an opportunity to discuss after the motion or when do we discuss?

If we need to discuss, let's discuss now.

Yeah, okay.

Because I didn't call for discussion.

So I just want to know what everyone thinks.

What are your thoughts on this?

I know what I think, but I'm curious what my colleagues think.

How about you start?

Well, um it.

I'm not convinced that um it really does violate all of the criteria that is part of staff's recommendations, some maybe, um, but not all of them.

So there are more critical eyes in the room than just my own, and that's why I wanted to see what you thought.

I'll just say, as someone that works on older homes, um, there is an advantage of raising homes.

Many of the homes that we have in our certain neighborhoods are actually too low.

Um the the wood, while the while the wood was old growth in many cases a very good wood.

Um it is susceptible to moisture and dampness and termites.

So it's the way that the current code reads for new construction in the city of Houston is that if you use a wood pier and beam structure, um, unless you have 18 inches clear dimension from the uh ground level below the house to the bottom of your wood, you have to use treated wood, which you you're allowed to do that.

Um I think that generally speaking, having 18 inches of space under under a home that's balloon framed is a good idea.

And that will generally equate to a finished floor that's somewhere just under 30 inches or just over 30 inches, depending on how the house was built.

Uh I would defer to Commissioner Seidel, who may have more experience with with the construction techniques.

Um I I see no issues with lowering the house one block.

Um the issue here, it was raising additional block, so it's uh it's it's really tall.

And the only other case study we have for raising houses beyond the the minimum of 18 inches is if you're in a floodplain and there is an established you know FEMA risk, um, then we allow homes to be raised even higher.

So um but my understanding is for this location it's not an issue.

It's very it's a very high elevation.

It has not flooded historically.

It's not it's not in a floodplain as far as FEMA is concerned that I'm aware of.

But that's generally what I know about raising houses and and when to stop raising them.

But yeah, I think I think your your uh uh dimensions are are accurate.

But I I guess did this uh did the raising of the home go through approval?

No.

That's why it's a C of R.

That's why it's a C of R.

That's that's my assumption.

I'm just confirming that.

So um how do I feel about it?

Like that's that's not okay.

Um, you know, because I mean you we we can sit here and and and split hairs over eight, sixteen, twenty-four inches in the blocks.

I mean, the the fact of the matter is you adjusted a pretty consistent uh uh pretty I mean you you changed quite a bit without getting it approved, and I don't think that's okay.

So I mean what would stop you from doing 10 10 blocks, yeah.

So thank you.

Any other comments or discussion?

Okay, so I'm gonna call the vote officially just one note.

I mean, so any sort of work that's done without a COA is considered a alteration of this sort property.

So there are remedies that you know the HHC would seek from, could seek from the liable party.

Um that's under the historic preservation ordinance and the local government code.

So there are method or there are ways that we can be, I guess, punitive for work that's done without a COA.

Um but uh one of the overarching goals I think is of the ordinances to maintain the historic character.

So if a COR can do that, um I think that's what the Commission has likes to do.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, I'll call the official vote for the motion to accept staff's recommendation.

All in favor?

I any opposed motion passes.

Um we are now moving on, I believe, to item 18.

And if there was a motion to join um 18 and 19 to be presented at the same time.

Is there a second?

Jones.

All in favor.

I sorry, I didn't hear you.

Is there a motion to combine uh items 18 and 19 to be presented at the same time?

Yes.

Any opposed?

I mean I'm voting in favor of the motion.

Second and motion.

Understood.

I think it's after five o'clock or just about almost.

Yeah.

It's five o'clock somewhere.

I know that.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Chair members of the HHC.

This is Staff Person Terrence Jackson, and today I submit to you item D eighteen at 528 Columbia Street.

The property includes a 1,320 square foot one-story contributing craftsman style residence and detached garage situated on a 6600 square foot interior block, interior lot.

The applicant removed the windows, siding, and shiplap in violation of their approved COA HP 2025 underscore 0252, which was approved with conditions.

Staff has spoken to the applicant and verified that the existing windows are being repaired and refurbished by Plum Alley.

During construction, the applicant removed the following: the existing wood siding, original wood windows, existing composition shingle roof, front porch steps, and brick pony wall, and the existing shiplap from the contributing structure.

Staff recommends denial of a COA and issuance of a COR.

Two install three-quarter inch plywood in place of the removed shiplap.

Install wood bevel siding to match ex match the existing, replace front porch steps and brick prony wall on original structure and restore the existing windows with original light pattern.

I'm gonna go to D 19.

Um it's gonna be a bit repetitive here, but replace the removed siding with wood bevel siding to match the historic character, restore the original windows and read and reinstall at the original locations, replace the removed roofing with composition shingles, construct the new brick steps, build new walls, and revise roof configuration to provide seven-foot clearance at the stairs and construct the building according to previous COA with the revised stair clearance.

The original application proposed the following: a two-story rear addition totaling uh 1,584 square feet with the first floor 471 foot square feet, a second floor of 1123 square feet, the max ridge height of 295 with a five over twelve roof pitch and a c and composition shingles.

The original structure root ridge height at 22 feet, 10 inches with the 8 over 12 roof pitch, mix of fixed and single hand vinyl windows, inset and recess, and mix of single light and one over one pattern, smooth seedment tissue siding with a four-inch reveal.

Staff recommends approval with conditions to install wood or wood composite windows on the proposed edition, install three-quarter inch plywood in place of the room, remove shiplap, install wood bevel siding, front porch steps, and brick pony wall on original structure, and restore the existing windows with original light pattern.

Chair and H H C I am available for questions.

I know that was a lot too.

Understood.

Thank you though.

At this time I open the public hearing.

I do have two speakers signed up.

Uh the first speaker is Aleya M D Anda.

And I also have I can't quite read the name.

Is it Sabas?

Okay.

If you could state your full name for the record.

Yes.

Um good evening.

My name is Sabas Lel.

Um I'm responsible for the for the project.

And so well, yeah, good evening, Chair.

Commissioners.

Um.

Regarding project 528 Columbia.

Uh I'll be transparent.

They we're here to remediate a mistake.

Well, I was out of the country over the holidays, uh, New Year's Eve.

Uh one of our subcontractors made an authorized changes that deviated from our preservation goals.

My focus now is uh strictly to correct those errors and restore the home to its historical integrity.

Um the restoration plan includes what uh Mr.

Terrence was mentioning, new wood siding.

Uh just to replace the the well to just add it into the walls that were replaced or removed and just retain the unique bubble house shape.

We're using OSB inside plywood to uh replace the shiplap, or at least uh try to maintain it as it was a little bit, and then uh for the window restoration.

Fortunately, we had we had salvaged the windows prior to the let's call it accidents.

Uh these have been restored already by Plum Alley uh at a huge expense, and the windows for the addition are already wood windows um not vinyl anymore.

So these material is already restored and ready to be installed.

The challenge will be now to uh restore or refurbish the wood siding.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Aliyah M.

Diando.

Hi, uh Commissioners.

This is Alia Deanda from Design 3.

I only want to add that this project was originally done for another uh client.

And this was bought in a flow uh foreclosure.

And so it was already in sudden back conditions.

The current orn owner wants to do the right thing and restore this house.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I guess it's my understanding that the previous owner of this property had a C of A, but that C of A expired and then it was sold as as was mentioned.

So that's how I understand it, yes, sir.

Yep.

Okay, is there anyone else in the public here that would like to speak on this item?

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

Commissioner members, are there any questions?

Staff.

Um is there a motion to accept staff's recommendation?

So moved.

Second.

I need any discussion.

Yeah, please.

So I I need to understand there was a lot there, Terrence.

So I'm just trying to like can you put it into a term that just an old builder can understand of what the what I I clearly see the violin, I don't have any questions about what went down here.

No that's not where I'm going, but like what are we?

What are we voting to remedy uh or to go forward as they are stating they want to?

Yes.

So you can see from the picture.

So what what we're uh recommending is that first we put uh three-quarter inch plywood on the interior walls to in replace of the ship flap uh because the shiplap was removed.

Um second is to uh refurbish the windows of the original home.

Uh third is to have wood or wood composite windows placed in the addition versus the proposed uh vinyl.

Um fourth would be the um to replace the roof composition shingles, and then lastly um to replace the two more three more things, replace the siding that was removed with wood siding on the original home, and then uh replace the stairs that were removed from the porch of the original home and also to replace the uh brick pony wall that was removed from the original home.

So basically um everything on the original home that was taken that was removed.

Um the only thing that remains are the windows.

So the windows are at Plum Alley getting refurbished right now.

Um the shiplap has been disposed of, so therefore that's why we're asking for the uh plywood, and they will have to go back with Belwood siding to match the reveal, which I think is uh four inches.

And I'll just uh say the reason ship lap which is on the inside of the house is regulated by this commission is because it's actually a structural component of balloon framing walls, so it's what actually it's your it doesn't have headers and so forth like western framing.

So if you remove it um your wall sags, your windows break, and so that's uh as we say that we we don't regulate the inside of homes, but we do regulate ship lap on the exterior walls, which are holding up the exterior, if you will.

Um, question for staff.

Um the chair mentioned that there was a prior COA that had expired.

How much overlap is there between the prior COA that expired and what's in front of us now?

Is are they really similar, not very similar?

Um do you mean in sim the do you mean similarly similarities in the COA?

Correct.

Yes.

So the proposed COA just basically has a bump out, and you'll see that on you'll see that on 19.

There is a bump out at the staircase to um so that they could have clearance.

That's really the only thing that's uh changing from the previous COA is that they're asking to have that clearance of the stairway.

So there was a prior COA that we approved that expired the new one.

Okay.

And the new one has that one difference.

But the recommendation is to deny you see where I'm going?

Yes.

Well, that's because we have two COAs.

Um I think we if for this conversation, let's separate 18 uh D18 and D19.

Okay.

What I just discussed was D 19.

That's for the um uh revision, so to speak, to the previous COA.

Okay.

D 19 is for the remediation of the work that was done with uh in violation of the previous COA.

So the removal of the ship lap, removal of the windows, um, removal of the siding, stairs, and the pony wall.

So we deny that's just standard protocol denial of the COA on issue of a COR for uh remediation.

So they are agreeing to remediate everything that was done to reverse that and bring it back to what it was.

Make sense?

Yes, thank you.

Gotcha.

Commissioner Davis.

Just a question.

So all of the property changed hands midstream.

So none of this was done uh that what we need to now remediate was not done by the previous COA owner, but the current so I can just tell you what I know from my experience when we got the call.

We got the call that there was work being done without a permit without a COA.

Um when I went out on site, I asked the crew um could I speak to the owner or could I speak to the uh general contractor?

They in turn called this gentleman here who was out of town, and then he called me back when he got back in the country.

So as he mentioned, they did remove the siding.

Was it they I believe they removed the siding and the ship lab?

Yeah.

So did they do everything?

No.

Um, which I'm just now finding out.

But when I went on site, they had just removed and the dumpster their pictures of the dumpster they had removed the windows, ship lab deciding.

Did the previous owner do anything?

I honestly don't do not know.

We did not get any calls when the previous owner was working.

Could you ask a question of the applicant?

Yes, I'd like to ask the applicant, was any of the work for the previous CO COA by the previous owner, was anything done during their ownership, or was everything uh all of the changes that were made that now had to be remediated after the sale.

So the pony wall and the staircase, the brick staircase uh or the steps were not there when we uh bought the property.

Uh the siding and the ship lab, it was our miss uh the the steps were were not that that was already part.

Now it's important to mention that um when I first acquired the property we were uh summoned by the safe a safety commission because the property was falling.

And so I needed to first ensure that the walls were not going to fall and because it had been exposed with all without all the back part.

So we we redid all the foundation and we build the addition to support the walls.

Now where I got the mistake of having a let's call it a full width initiative was they removed what was falling, which was the siding and the ship, which shouldn't have been done.

And it was not well, that's the story.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And just a question to legal.

Just because I have to get this cleared my head.

Anything because I see this all the time where a homeowner has done something that they shouldn't have done, and then they sell the property and the new people, it's in is it incumbent upon the new people to remedy what was done prior to purchasing the house?

Just trying to separate responsibility.

Excuse me.

Yes, I mean the I think the ordinance, the historic preservation ordinance contemplates the site, um, not necessarily the owner or the liable party.

Um so the site itself or the property itself that would need to be remediated, whether it's by you know and it would make sense that it'd be the present owner that would have to do that remediation to hold the prior owner liable.

I think that's outside the bounds of what we're able to not consider, but um I don't think that we are able to hold a previous owner liable for um work that they did outside of the COA.

Um if that was done, if if work that was done out work was done outside of a COA by a prior owner and then they transferred the property.

Um I believe the way that we would operate was that the present owner would have to get a COR to remediate that work, um, should that be what staff determines?

Yep.

Any other questions?

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve staff recommendation.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Cosgrove seconds and no more discussions.

Do we need to clarify that this is for both items 18 and 19?

This is for both this is the recommendations for both 18 and 19 for staff's recommendations.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

That motion passed.

We will now move on to item 21.

Good evening.

Chair and members of the HHC.

This is Staff Person Terrence Jackson, and today I submit to you item D 21 at 1118 Two Lane Street.

The property includes a historic 943 square foot one-story craftsman style wood single family residence situated on the 6600 square foot interior lot located in the Houston Heights Historic District constructed in circa 1915.

The applicant proposes to construct a two-story addition towards the rear of the home and an interior remodel of the existing home.

The existing stone has caused the foundation and framing of the home to deteriorate, thus the applicant would like to remove the stone piece by piece, repair the foundation and wall framing, then install siding in place of the stone.

Previous staff instructed the applicant to remove the stone, have it placed on a pallet and numbered to be put back in place as closely as possible.

Staff believe this would be this would place a huge financial strain on the project and would ask that the HHC to consider the stone be replaced with siding or provide other suggestions.

The applicant proposes to construct a 1,770 square foot rear addition, first and second floors.

The first floor will have a 732 square foot addition, and the second floor will have a 1,038 square foot addition.

The applicant proposes to maintain all existing windows and doors, partially demolish the rear wall to accommodate for the rear addition, construct with to be constructed with a max ridge height of 24 feet nine inches, construct the second floor eve height at 19 feet 10 inches to the top of the Eve, construct the roof with new composition shingles with six and a half with a six and a half roof six over twelve roof pitch, I'm sorry.

Demolish the existing three over twelve roof pitch and reconstruct with seven over roof seven over twelve roof pitch to accommodate for mechanical services.

They propose to construct the home with nine foot first floor ceiling height and a nine foot second floor ceiling height.

Smooth thematistics siding and trim at the addition, repair the existing side, I'm sorry.

All new windows need to be inset and reset, see attachment A for details.

And they will repair the existing phase chance off it's within common material.

Staff recommends approval, chair, members of the HHC, I'm available available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Terrence.

Um at this time open the public hearing.

I don't have anyone sign up for this item.

If anyone is here, please announce yourself.

Are there questions from the Commission of Staff?

Commissioner Cosgrove.

Um is the stone original on the outside of the house?

Uh so uh we've had conversations about this.

So all the uh BLA information that we found in all, I mean, as you guys know, this I think we've seen this project about 10 times.

And uh all the BLA information is does not go back far enough to verify if it is.

Um staff tends to believe that it's not original.

Um simply because we kind of feel like if if had it been original that this framing and this foundation probably would have collapsed long ago.

Um the foundation looks terrible.

Um then also considering, and I'm just going off on a tangent here, but also considering the process that it's gonna take for them to remove the stone and then place it on a pallet and number it and then place it back, you know, as closely as possible.

Um, you know, that has deterred this owner from uh moving forward with any COAs.

Uh so he's tried demolition, he's tried uh several additions.

He's tried uh to have it um made non-contributing.

Um I went back and looked in the files, and I mean it's like almost a page full of COA.

So I don't to answer your question, staff doesn't believe that it is um original, but it would also require like the removal of some of that said side uh stone to actually verify that, which I don't think the owner is wanting to do incur that expense until he can move forward with the project.

And is the the foundation of the original house is pure and beam?

Yes, sir.

And how high off the ground is it?

Ooh, it's not high at all.

It's I'd say it's close to about 16, 18 inches.

So are they gonna raise this house?

That has not been discussed.

I mean, I I only ask because the drawings show virtually no foundation on either the addition or the house.

So it's really hard to kind of understand from these drawings what exactly the intention is.

So I mean, these are questions that I think I would like to know the answer to.

Okay.

And they also all the renderings are showing not siding on the house.

Yes.

And so it's very hard to like interpret what the applicant has in mind.

And I don't feel like this is a very developed set of plans.

Okay.

I mean, is the addition on a slab?

Yes, as far as I know, yes, sir.

Yes.

But they're not gonna raise the Pierre and Beam house that's almost in the ground?

He has not mentioned to me that they plan to raise the home.

Now, let me also state what I've information that I've been privy to.

What I understand, and this may have much to do about nothing, but what I understand is the home is going up for sale, and the plan is to get an approved COA and the COA to be part of the sale.

So maybe that's why there isn't much detail on the raising that we have to do.

They maybe haven't invested into the project enough to really understand what they're attempting to do.

Well, um, I mean it's so I have uh this has been interesting.

Um I full disclosure, the agent had a baby like literally five days ago.

So he and I just lost communication and I hadn't been able to talk to him.

So I have spoken with them.

We had discussions about deferring.

They are they are okay with they were okay then with deferring the project because they understand that we did lose some time.

They would like to move forward, but if a deferral is something that we need to put on the table in order to get these questions answered and or asked, um or asked and or answered, I am totally absolutely fine with doing so.

Uh this is Matthew Mendoza.

Um I might add that if we if the deferral is contemplated further, maybe either now or subsequent uh just to include those questions that we might show the applicant, um, just so that when they do come back up, um they're not surprised and able to answer all that in the packet, and then if need be when they speak.

Thank you.

Come Commissioner Davis, you had a question.

So looking at the sandborne map, I could be incorrect, but according to the sandbarn map, this was a one-story wood frame house, not brick.

I'm not st the stone isn't indicated on it.

Yeah, Commissioner.

Is it great?

Yes, I was uh I was actually gonna ask a similar question.

What date is this sandborne?

Uh this sandborne, I believe came from 20 the 24 to uh 1924 to 52.

To 55 or 55, what you're doing.

51 or 55.

Yeah, because it would be great if you can get the colorized, it will tell you what the exterior material is.

Okay.

Um but right now, Commissioner Davis is right, it's without any markings on there, it's reading as wood.

Um but by the later sandborns, if they're blue or you know, different color is going to tell you if it's brick or stone or I can tell you the the sandboards that are on display in the Julia Odison library are are in color and they are of this period.

Commissioner Davis, another question.

Just for I know for the heights, the sandborne maps that are there in the library reflect 1963.

They don't reflect the or so you know they paste it over every year.

So you're not so you get color, but you may not get the original formation.

Sure.

Sometimes the it depends on the project.

Sometimes they were never changed, and sometimes they were changed, and you can actually see layers of um the the when they're pasting over, it's fairly transparent.

But um often there are black and white copies of earlier versions of it, so you can kind of if you look at the black and white versions that are digital, you can retrace the layers.

But it all it's all a case by case uh by that property.

But if there were changes made, you will know you'll be able to see through the paper and see something slightly different underneath as well.

But it's still a good resource.

Uh any other questions or is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve staff represent recommendation.

Okay, Broadback makes a motion.

Is there a second?

Second, uh Commissioner Mark Smith.

Any other discussion?

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Staff's recommendation is approval, correct?

Yes.

It was uh called jobs.

So is it five four or can we uh please redo that for the record?

Okay.

So all in favor of the motion to accept accept staff's recommendation.

Broadback.

Broadback.

Smith, Sidel.

Davis and Hill.

And Hill.

Davis and Hill.

One, two, three, four.

I have four.

Yeah.

And I have one, two.

Three, four, five.

And I have si uh do I have six that are opposed?

Hill is opposed or heel is floor.

One, two, three, four, five.

So five, four.

Okay, so that motion passed, uh, doesn't pass.

So is there no?

I'll make a motion to defer.

I would second the motion to defer, and I would, in light of what you said.

I believe that they need to be developed because I feel like this is a project that is gonna wind up like 528 Columbia if it changes hands and someone's gonna take some plans and then all of a sudden they're gonna be in front of us because they raised it three blocks because they realize there's nothing found, you know, and I just I just feel like if we're gonna approve something, we need to actually approve what's going to be built, not someone's idea that they want to sell.

And can I add?

I also think that we can answer the limestone block question, or at least get a little closer to what it is and move away from the idea of palatizing all of it.

Okay.

For the record, I don't actually have trouble.

I don't think the stone is probably real.

I don't have issue with the change to the siding, but I mean the drawing doesn't show siding.

So I mean if there's just too many inconsistencies.

Right.

And I just want to make sure we get legal covered.

Um the question is will you raise the existing foundation?

Um can you show the foundation on the plans for the future foundation and what will the foundation of the addition be?

All right.

Commissioner Sidel.

Yeah.

I um is there is there are are they here, the applicant?

No, no.

I mean, if you have a question.

I guess I don't have a question.

I'm just in support of what is being said that the the plans need to be accurate and more developed.

And as somebody who has been inside or evaluated that exact home, you'd need to give them like they've got to evaluate the foundation situation.

Okay.

I mean the grade beams almost entirely under the ground.

Yes.

Say it.

Yeah.

Um I do well.

Just for point of clarity, um, does no one have an issue with the changing of the existing roof?

I Commissioner Blakeley.

They're arrows with no text next to them.

And so there's a lot of unclarity around what they what they're saying they intend to do.

So I'd like to see that detail.

Uh present.

You would like to see the the text from the arrows.

I would like to see a complete drawing that clearly indicates all that is required to be indicated about the proposed elevation.

Understood.

Commissioner Davis.

And I probably voted the wrong way here.

A little confusion.

But I can appreciate the fact that they want a little clarity.

The people the people who are selling it want a little clarity on what can happen.

And so and I appreciate that.

And I don't know if we with regard to the stone, I know that type of stone is a major issue for sales in the heights.

So can we give them so that's one of the things they're probably really interested in?

Can we give them any guidance in that direction?

Yeah.

So we've talked about it, and I think from the I'll call them preliminary discussions we've had thus far.

It seems like based on what we've seen from the Sanborn preliminarily, of course, and based on what it's done to the foundation.

Um I think everyone would be okay.

Well, I don't want to say everyone, I'm sorry.

I think they might the majority might be okay with removing the stone.

Um that's at least that's what I've taken from this conversation.

It didn't seem to be like anyone was going to object to that.

Um hopefully um what I can do for the next commission and for the next report, I can get to the House and I can get photos of what it's done to the foundation to add to the report so that you all can see what the framing in the foundation look like, because it's it's not it's not good whatsoever.

So um I think that will help in aiding on the decision of allowing them to uh use siding rather than the stone.

And plus asking someone to palletize stone in number, it is kind of and they need to represent that on the drawings, like if we're going to siding, you shouldn't show stone on your drawing.

Yeah.

Okay.

All in favor of deferral.

Oh, one moment.

Um is this the first time this application has come for for this particular proposed work?

Yes.

Okay.

I just wanted to highlight that, you know, if the commission defers um an application two times on that third occasion that it shows up in front of the commission, it's considered approved.

So just to keep that in mind for a few years, in future.

Just for a point of clarity, it was originally approved, I mean deferred by the applicant.

So I think we're good at it.

Gotcha.

All in favor of the deferral.

Aye.

All opposed.

That motion passes.

We're down to our last item, which is item number 26.

Uh no, I think I'm good.

Okay, good afternoon, good evening.

Uh good afternoon, Chairperson, members of the commission and the public.

This is Staff Person Charles Sadler.

I submit for your consideration item D 26 at 505 and 503 Sol Ross in the first Montrose Commons Historic District.

These residential buildings are being converted to commercial use as part of the surrounding Monarch Community Rehabilitation Center.

And just a point of information, the two lots were replatted in the past.

So now they're both considered one lot.

These are both contributing properties.

The applicant is proposing I'll start with 503 Sol Ross first, proposing replacement of windows, which would be Anderson E series wood, historic series.

These are equally divided one over one, inset and recessed.

So they meet the historic guidelines that we go by.

Next item for that address would be remove existing dash-finish stucco, which is in very poor condition and is has separated from the building in spots and then been repaired.

And then they would replace that with dash finished stucco.

And next building is 505 Sol Ross.

And that those points there are restore and repair existing wood windows.

And those windows are actually a defining feature.

And they are divided light windows where the house next door is just one over one.

And I have met with the applicants about that, and they have agreed to that.

Next point, replace existing wood shutters with wood shutters of the same proportions.

And specifically on the front of the building, the north elevation in large, and this is for ADA compliance.

And since it is a health care type facility, that's particularly appropriate.

So in the north elevation and large the brick front entry area.

So the as you come out of the front door, there's really just maybe 12, 16 inches.

So they're proposing a landing, which is required.

And that landing will have wrought iron uh banisters and handrails, which is similar to what it has right now.

And the other point, which you can see in the drawings, is install an A ADA compliant metal ramp, which will have wrought iron handrails, and the proposed ramp heads from the front door east.

And it's very close to the facade and it's black, so it's practically very inconspicuous while still meeting the needs.

So staff recommends approval with conditions, and those conditions are for 503 Sol Ross.

The applicant must submit a sample dash finish of the stucco for staff approval, and we'll work with the building inspector also on that before proceeding with restocing the whole building.

The architect is here if you have any questions, and so is uh Dr.

Longmeyer from the neighborhood.

And that concludes my presentation.

If you have any questions.

Thank you.

This time I will open the public hearing.

I do have two uh speakers signed up for questions each.

Um the first is Katie Garvey, and the second is uh Stephen Longmire.

Would you like to say anything about the project?

Or just answer questions if needed.

Hi, I'm Katie Garvey.

I am uh the architect working on the project.

We've been working with Monarch community uh for the last two years.

They have multiple uh historic uh properties within their community.

Um so we've we've run through this process on a few of those as well.

Um they have been very successful.

Um we love to restore as much as we can.

So we're just here to learn about what steps we need to take.

So we had Pete Stockton come out and explain the stucco, the ship lap, the proper way to demo and put those things back.

Um that's why we're here.

Just to hear what you have to say, and we love your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Longmeyer.

Hi, I'm Steve Longmeyer.

And for those who don't know me, I was I'm a former president of the Civic Association.

I was the one who walked the petitions to create the historic district.

So I know a little bit about its history.

The history of this property or this project dates back to well, well before COVID, and of the entity, uh the which is now called the Monarch Community Center, dates back into the mid-1970s when it was a unique residential community alternative mental health program.

It was very loosely run until just before COVID, um, with many of these historic buildings literally falling down and in horrible shape.

Uh so much so that we asked a former member of this commission who restores historic buildings to come out and do a consultation, and it took him months to go through to do the evaluation.

Commissioner Buchek has also served as a consultant on the project in an attempt to bring these people to compliance.

There's a new owner, there's a new medical director, the Methodist Hospital has taken over the care of the uh uh clients at this institution, and it is unique in the country.

Finally, the buildings will all be brought up to code and the historic buildings brought up to historic restoration code.

We have met over and over and over again trying to have the least impact, which is what they want and what the neighborhood wants, and yet preserve this unique program.

So I encourage you to look carefully at this and do whatever you can to approve uh the requests that is before you.

And I'm answering questions, Jay.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I can just say I've sat on a couple of reviews for this uh with the uh design firm, and so they've um and again this is a project that the community has supported uh the efforts and it's it's ongoing.

But uh is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak on this item?

Not seeing anyone out close a public hearing.

Please, yes.

I do have a question about the uh the windows.

And I know uh Dr.

Larmar, you have been adamant uh in the neighborhood about replacing about re rebuilding windows rather than replacing, and have made several statements that replacement windows are not nearly as good as the old windows.

So I'm just curious now as to why you are advocating replacement windows instead of rebuilding the existing ones.

I can answer that.

Um 503, uh which is the like to be blunt, like the the planar of the two buildings.

Uh about half the windows are not original.

There's even sheets of plexiglass that are caulked in, so it's it's about half of them are not original, and then the other half are not in good shape.

And then there's been windows added that are there's like metal cages and uh so it's though the windows are they're not a defining feature, and there's really almost none that are in good shape.

And uh and the other building, the windows there are some that are in very bad shape, but most of them are in good shape and they're a defining feature.

And so we wanted to work with the applicant and allow them to replace on the one building with the with the agreement that they would restore on the other building.

So that's how we got to that uh like uh suggestion.

Any other questions of staff?

Got a question for uh Chair.

If is there um I just I still feel a little loose on and because I'm new, but like w uh requirements uh around windows.

Uh can you just help me understand that I mean the E-Series is a clad window, so I don't I'm not any window that I've ever installed on a home is painted wood with the same profile.

So I'm can you help me understand?

The way the ordinance is written, if original window is in good shape or a repairable shape, reason reasonably repairable, um it's considered to be historic fabric and should be retained and repaired if needs repairing.

Um but the ordinance does have specific language that says if the window is uh really distressed and would require an extraordinary repair that um replacement is allowed, and in that case, as long as visually the replacement window looks like the original window is in set and recessed, it could be a different material than the original material, as long as it maintains sight lines, light patterns, and um instill adheres to the incident and recess uh reset uh requirements.

So what happened, I don't quite I can't quite remember if it was under this new commission or the former, but I think actually the day that this new commission came into being, there was an opinion paper was uh was um was actually uh announced to the public on that same day.

Um that just uh reiterating what I just said, but it's uh it's it's uh on an 8x11 size sheet, and you we've we've seen that sheet displayed as part of applications throughout the day.

So it's um it's really clipped down to what the condition of the other window is in, can it be fixed?

Does it warrant replacement once it's once it reaches that threshold, then there are many other options that you could go back with.

So a question for you, staff then is are all the windows that are being replaced on the stucco structure meet that criteria?

So and then to elaborate on what Chair Buchek said.

Uh when we work with the building inspector, we do a site visit.

If the windows if at least 50 percent is unrepairable, where it's warped, rotted, um sometimes it's already been repaired, and then that's the standard uh that it's that it's it's reason it's beyond reasonable repair.

And that's what these windows met.

And there were like 50 percent of them that were original about and they did they had 50 percent or more that was damaged.

Thank you.

That's how we reached that.

That was also part of doing, I think, three site visits and and Inspector Stockton was part of those.

Yeah, and I'll say that um the um this is a large commercial uh habitation of of folks that have been in the neighborhood existing in these structures.

Um a lot of the focus for the sessions I sat on were how to maintain the unique quality of each of these singular structures and kind of minimize that you know these are really like a much larger building, but they don't look that doesn't feel institutional.

Um because they've retained these smaller structures in scale, they've made the connections more recessive.

Um they've tried to, you know, make the yards and other areas garden-like, which is again historically since the 1840s has been one of the one of the um ways to think about mental health and how to build facilities or series of hospitals built across the country.

Um Austin State Hospital in Austin is one of the great examples, surviving examples of that type.

I think there's another one in um upstate New York in a ranking on uh Buffalo.

Um it's it's it's I find it to be a very interesting project, and I think that's why the neighborhood is so appreciative of the the client and the design team and what they try to you know work.

It's a very difficult project they have because it wasn't an easy uh design um process they had to go through.

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

Second.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That passes, and we will move on to item E.

Comments from the public.

I opened the public hearing and there's still some public out there, but they don't have to speak either.

Okay.

So I'll close the public hearing.

We'll move on to item F, the historic preservation officers report.

Do you want a report or not?

I have it ready if you would like it.

Okay.

So good evening, Chair Buch, Commission members and members of the public.

My name is Yasmin Arslan, and I am serving as the interim preservation officer.

I am pleased to present the preservation officers' report for April, highlighting key updates and ongoing efforts to preserve Houston's historic character.

While we did not hold a regular commission meeting in March and took no applications, staff remained busy with the following.

Staff continue to process pre-design applications, conduct multiple site visits, and issue administratively approved certificates of appropriateness.

Ethics training for the members of the Historical and Archaeological Commission and the Historical Appeals Board was held on March 12th and was successfully completed.

We thank all commissioners for their time, participation, and continued service.

A public hearing for the Norhill Design Guidelines was held on March 24th.

During that hearing, we received comments from both commissioners and members of the public.

Staff will now begin reviewing the staff, the draft design guidelines to address and incorporate the feedback we received.

Once revisions are complete, we will schedule the next public hearing, and that date will be announced once confirmed.

Staff is continuing to test the Houston Preservation Tracker site and is working with IT to resolve remaining technical issues.

A survey was sent to applicants to gather feedback on the tracker, and a link to the survey is also available on our preservation tracker website.

The survey will remain open until the end of April, and we encourage the public to participate.

If you have comments or suggestions in the meantime time, please reach out to us.

Lastly, um I'd like to acknowledge the team for working over time to meet current workload demands and support timely review of applications and meeting deadlines.

A significant portion of preservation review occurs behind the scenes and is not reflected in the final agenda items.

Applications are not simply reviewed at submitted, particularly when denial is anticipated.

Staff work closely with applicants throughout the process by providing feedback and suggesting revisions to move towards an approval.

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

This concludes my preservation officer reports.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, we are adjourned.