It's now 239.

Uh PM Thursday, May 21st, 2026.

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

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

I will call the roll.

The Chair is present.

Commissioner Jones is absent today.

Present.

Commissioner Blakely.

Present.

Commissioner Ascabar.

Present.

Commissioner Hill.

Present.

Commissioner Cosgrove.

Commissioner Seidel.

Present.

Commissioner Mark Smith.

Present.

Commissioner Browning.

Present.

Commissioner Broadbeck.

Present.

Commissioner Garcia.

Present.

Commissioner Davis.

And also Deputy Director Robert Williamson.

Present.

Thank you, Commissioners.

We have a quorum.

I will start with the Chair's report.

And I will review the speaker rules.

We apologize for the late start.

We have a very large agenda today.

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

These meetings do start a few minutes after the scheduled time just 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 at the front door and turn it in to the staff member nearest the front door.

These speaker rules are posted on the agenda and are at my discretion at this meeting.

Applicants will open and speak for three minutes.

Please return to your seat after you address the commission.

Note that you also may uh be asked or recognized by myself or commission member if there are additional questions that a member has.

After the applicant has spoken, other public speakers may speak uh one time, up to two minutes when I recognize you to speak.

Um also please note for individual consideration of certificates of appropriateness after staff's initial presentation.

I will open the public hearing.

Uh Commission members, please hold your questions for staff until after the public deliberations have occurred and um and we do that just to keep to keep the meeting rolling forward and staying on time.

And with that, we will move on.

Um I do not have a mayor's liaison report, so we'll move on to the director's report.

Uh Robert.

Great.

Thank you, Chair Buchak, and good afternoon, commissioners and members of the public.

I'm Robert Williamson, acting secretary of this commission and deputy director of the Houston Planning Department.

For my report today, I have two announcements.

First, the Norrill design guidelines are not being brought to this commission this month for review as reported last month.

Staff is still revising the final draft and it will be brought in for review next month.

Second, I want to I want to announce that the chair has requested that we schedule an HAHC workshop in the coming weeks to discuss possible rules and procedures for the commission with the goal of improving the operation of the commission.

This work session will be the framework for developing rules and procedures that will be considered by the commission in the coming weeks.

Finally, it's been a busy spring.

Since our April 2026 meeting, we received three requests for pre-application design reviews and 46 new COA applications.

This brings our year-to-date pre-application design reviews to twenty-four, and year-to-date COAs submitted to 163.

We've also administratively approved 17 COAs during the cycle, bringing our year-to-date total to 48.

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

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now move on to the consideration for the April 23rd, 2026 HAHC meeting minutes.

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

Are there any um?

I have a couple of corrections, Mr.

Chair.

First, the minutes describe the hard cutoff change is allowing commissioners to abstain for conflicts of interest, which reads as a permission.

The transcript of that meeting uh shows that Deputy Director Williamson actually said that the change supports the policy of only allowing abstention for conflicts of interest.

So that's a restriction, it's not a permission, and the minutes should reflect what was actually said that day.

Um my second correction would be that uh my vote on D matter D three uh was recorded as opposed abstained, uh which is not how I voted.

Um I simply abstained, and so the record would need to reflect the vote that I actually cast.

Um if uh if this is going to require any kind of wordsmithing because we have a heavy agenda tonight, what I might suggest is that we table the approval of the April 23rd minutes until the June meeting, if that's necessary, just to save time.

Otherwise, Mr.

Chair, if you want to handle it now, that's up to you.

Um, well, I mean, part of part of this meeting that I'm proposing that we have is to address questions like this, but for instance that you've raised.

So um if we want to wait until next month to approve the minutes, it's I have no issue with that.

Yeah, so we we can we can table that and I won't call a vote or accept the minutes, so you're they're noted.

And as I said, um, I don't know that the date of what I requested is being determined yet, but I'm not sure the date, but we will be reviewing a number of items.

Um, and I believe they will include this item of abstentions.

So with that, I will move on then to item A, which is a public hearing in consideration of and possible action on a landmark designation application for the first city national bank located at uh 1221 Main Street, Euston, Texas, 7702.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha Delione.

I submit item uh A for your consideration at 1021 Main Street for the landmark designation of the first city national bank.

The 1961 First City National Bank is a corporate modern skyscraper in the center of downtown Houston, Texas.

The historically functional related complex includes a 32-story office tower, hyphen, and non-historic parking garage connected by an original subterranean tunnel to the original detached seven-story parking garage.

The office tower, hyphen, and non-historic uh garage are located at 1021 Main Street, and the original garage is located at 1101 Van Instreat.

When First National Bank and City National Bank merged in 1956, it was determined that a larger modern complex was needed to house the corporation.

The original context included the tower, the hyphen, a baking uh banking pavilion, and a motor bank, all designed by Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill with Houston architects Wilson Morris, Crane, and Anderson.

The banking pavilion and motor bank were demolished in 1998, and in 1999, the parking garage constructed in its place connects the tower through the above ground hyphen and the and and an underground lobby.

First City National Bank is significant in the area of architecture with the year being 1961.

The complex is significant as an early skyscraper building in Houston to employ the geometric masonry structural grid, aka exoskeleton, or our articulated frame.

Pioneered by Bunchaff with engineer Paul Wildlinger.

The resulting design was so widely employed by multiple SOM offices during the 1960s that it became somewhat of a trademark for the firm.

The exterior structure reduced or eliminated interior columns, creating more flexible open space.

The tower was constructed during a brief transitional period in SOM's corporate modern architecture between the Mesian early 1950s glass curtain wall systems developed by Bunchaff for the um for the property.

The property meets criteria one, four, five, and six for landmark designation.

Most of this report was extracted from the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the First City national bank by Ryan LLC.

Senior consultants, Amanda Coleman, and Steph McDougall, consultant Melanie Cattle, and assisted by Director Anna Maud.

The first City national bank is nominated to the National Register under Criterion C in the area of architectural texture at the local level of significance.

Staff recommends that the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission recommend to City Council uh the prote the landmark designation of 1021 Main Street, Houston, Texas, 7702, known as the First City National Bank.

Chairs and member chair and members of the commission, Amanda Coleman from Ryan is here to speak on this item.

I'm also available for any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time I'll open the public hearing.

I do have three speakers signed up to speak on this item.

They are Amanda Coleman and Brooks Howe, which are both indicated as the applicant, as well as as mentioned, Melanie Codell.

Um would Amanda uh Coleman or Brooks Howe like to start?

Amanda Coleman.

Okay.

Hello and good afternoon, members of the commission.

My name is Amanda Coleman, and I'm the applicant on behalf of ownership for the landmark designation of 1021 Main Street, also known as First City National Bank.

I would like to express ownership's full support for the designation and the appreciation for the historic preservation program, which helps our built environment and drives economic development.

While ownership could not attend today in person, myself and my colleague at Ryan Historic Advisors are here to speak in support of the project.

Melanie Cadell, who was one of my co-authors in the National Register of Historic Places report, which was accepted by the National Park Service and listed in the register on January 20th, 2026, is here to also speak on the owner's behalf.

Please note this review was also done in coordination with the Texas Historical Commission and supported by HHC in August of 2025.

Additionally, Brooks W.

Howell, Principal Architect at Gensler, is here to answer additional questions related to the project.

And as one point of clarification, the only the lot with the tower, the hyphen, and the non-historic garage are being considered for this landmark nomination.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so we'll we'll proceed next with Melanie Codell, followed by Brooks Howe.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Melanie Cadell with Ryan Historic Advisors, and I want to start by thanking the Commission for reviewing the landmark nomination for the first city national bank.

As my colleague Amanda said, I am a contributing author for the National Register of Historic Places nomination for this building that was nominated under Criterion C for architecture.

I also helped prepare the landmark application.

Throughout that process, I had the opportunity to study the first city national bank's history, architecture, and significance within Houston.

As Skidmore Owings and Merrill's first building in downtown Houston, and one of the first with an exoskeleton structure, the first city national bank is an excellent example of corporate modern design.

Its innovative structural system visible on the exterior make it an important part of Houston's architectural legacy.

It has been rewarding to help document and support the preservation of this historic building.

I appreciate the commission's time and consideration today.

I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brooks Howe.

Good afternoon, Commissioner and Chairman.

Uh I'm Brooks Howell with Gensler, the principal in charge for this project.

You know, I just want to tell you just a tiny bit about what we're doing with the building.

The building is roughly 600,000 square feet.

It's going to be converted into 553 apartments, of which 460 are market rate rental, with 93 essentially functioning on a various short shorter term.

You can do them for monthly or multiple months, etc.

Um, the project will single-handedly increase the number of units in downtown by 5% given on the existing units.

Um it's an excellent candidate for conversion.

The distance from the based on really the floor plate itself, the distance from the core to the glass is the only thirty-one and a half feet, which essentially in the structural bays work out very, very well for the conversion.

So it's a very nice clean conversion.

Um anyway, I'm happy to answer any questions, other questions you might have about the project that are not in the application.

Just one question.

So uh but you later you will be bringing an application of C of A for the changes that you have uh just outlined to the commission.

Yes.

And we will see that in in due time.

And um I remember this building, and of course the the uh this for the banking lobby was also very iconic.

It was sort of a big glass box, and it was more um it was more open than in any Apple store I've ever seen.

So yeah, it was a very you know early uh design that it seems like that many Apple stores replicated over time, but it was a very signature piece of architecture in downtown Houston for many many years.

Yes, the building's in really an excellent sort of preserve condition in terms of the existing lobby and uh you know we're maintaining all the site lines in terms of the the original uh green marble in the core, et cetera.

So it's an exciting project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Not hearing that I will close the public hearing.

Um, Commissioner members, is there um any questions of staff on this item?

And if not, is there a motion to accept staff's recommendation for this item?

I see a motion to accept.

I had a question of the applicant, that's okay.

Okay.

Which applicant?

Um the final, I apologize, sir, I forget your name.

Brooks Howe.

Okay, Mr.

Howe.

Yes.

Um, so for the short-term rentals, are those terms going to be any less than 30 days?

Essentially, it's a hotel.

It'll function as a hotel.

You'll be you can go there for one night.

If you're coming to a convention, you can stay there for one night.

Um the particular brand is is called Roost, and they typically function more in a weekly monthly.

Um they expect to see people.

You'll see quite a few families coming to the medical center for treatment, staying there.

Um, you'll have, you know, attorneys and other professionals.

I suspect that we at Gens are we're right across the street.

It's outside my window.

We will put a fair number of our folks there.

But it's a hotel, it has a separate check-in.

There is a you know, there's a staff, they have house cleaning services, et cetera.

So it's really, but that's that's 93 of the of the 553 units basically.

Okay, so it's not a VRBO type thing.

Okay, no, no, it's a it's a hotel.

You go to the website, you can look it up as a roost.

It's more in line with the you know, again, a Marriott than anything else.

Okay, looking forward to the application.

Yes, okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I have a motion.

Is there a second?

Hill second.

I think I think I heard Cosco first.

Um, all in favor of the motion.

I think any opposed.

Okay.

Um motion carries.

We'll move on to item B, consideration and possible action on the following applications for certificates of appropriateness.

Um or more of these items may be taken in one motion has a consent agenda.

And we were we will now review the proposed consent agenda.

Um, Mr.

Chair, point point of order.

Um, for this and all of the applications that come.

If is it okay if I ask that staff flag for us in advance if there were any changes that were made to any of these applications between the time they were publicly posted and today, just so that the commissioners know that going in?

Is that appropriate?

I don't believe any changes have been made on any applications since they were posted as as was discussed in our last meeting, but uh I can ask uh staff to my if I may my concern stems from an email that the commissioners received earlier this week stating that there might be changes, and so I just want to know in advance of each application have changes been made.

Would you like to answer the question to Terrence?

Yes, sir.

Uh staff member Terrence Jackson here.

Um so I I have spoken with staff, and the only change that we are that I am aware of at this point is item B 14.

Uh on the draft they said approval and it is approval with conditions.

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

And then uh item B 20 7718 Morley Street was deferred by applicant.

Terrence, the question on 14, yes, sir.

Your recommendation change, but is anything in the application change?

No, sir.

Okay.

So the answer is no, but one other project was deferred by the applicant.

Yes, sir.

That's the only change.

Yes.

So no changes to the information submitted for review.

Right.

There's no changes to information.

I mean, I mean, anything outside of maybe a few more letters of support or something like that.

But nothing, no design changes, no changes to the to the actual project.

Thank you.

Do you have anything to add?

Or I can be very detail oriented if you want me, so I'm asking if you would like me to be.

I'm uh crest with a good memory.

So would you like me to go in details like about little things?

I'm just curious whether to answer the question, whether the question was whether there were changes in the designs put forth by the applicants.

So there are no changes to the design.

For example, there's an application, Arlington, that has the addition as a separate application and the garage as a separate application.

All we did was add a site plan that shows that addition the the floor plan with the addition and the garage on the same one.

We had them separate, so and that was submitted under supporting documents for applicants material and maybe a BLA.

That's that's it.

But um everything was uh almost exactly the same.

Okay, thank you.

Uh yes, I must definitely can.

Um because we have just like last month, uh, because we have a long agenda.

Um I am going to skip the historic district or landmark and just read the address application uh type and the uh recommendation.

Um is that okay?

Yes.

Okay.

I mean I knew it was gonna be a long agenda, so uh I put on my best threads today.

I got a lot of compliments.

Okay, good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners and the public.

I'm staff member Tanis Jackson.

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

Items B1, 1512 Arlington Street, alteration addition, recommendation approval.

Item B2, 1512 Arlington, new construction of an accessory dwelling unit, recommendation approval.

Item B3, 1806 State Street, alteration addition, recommendation approval.

Item 18 1 1810 Courtland Street, alteration addition, recommendation approval, or item B5, 1810 Courtland Street, new construction of a garage or a carport, recommendation approval.

Item B6, 611 Omar Street, alteration addition, recommendation approval.

Item B7, 805 Courtland, alteration addition, recommendation approval.

Item B 8, 805 Courtland, new construction of a garage or a carport, recommendation approval.

B9, 1011 Fugate, alteration addition, recommendation approval.

11182 Lane Street, alteration addition, recommendation approval.

B11 202 East 31st Street, new construction of a single family residential, and this is deferred by staff.

Item B12, 202 East 31st and a half street, new construction of a garage or a carport.

This item is also deferred by staff.

Item B 13, 4601 Oak Ridge Street, new construction garage or carport, recommendation approval.

4601 Oak, I'm sorry, item B 14, 4601, Oak Ridge Street, alteration addition, foundation, siding of trim, doors, windows, porch, or balcony, chimney, and roof or other uh recommendation approval with conditions.

Item B 15, 1131 Dunbar Street, alteration addition, foundation siding or trim, doors, windows, and roof recommendation approval.

Item B 16 3601 White Oak Alter alteration of siding and trim approval with conditions.

Item B 17, 1012 Key Street, alteration addition recommendation approval.

Item B 18, 514 West Main Street, alteration addition recommendation approval.

Item B19, 514 West Main Street, new construction of a garage or a carport recommendation approval.

B20 7718 Morley, alteration of roof or other deferred by applicant.

Item B 23, 22, Westmoreland, alteration addition, foundation siding or trim, doors, windows, and roof, deferred by applicant.

B24, 1127 Le Green Street, alteration of a portrait balcony, siding or trim and windows, recommendation approval.

815 Arlington Street, alteration addition, recommendation approval.

B27 709 Marshall Alteration of Windows Recommendation Approval.

B 28, 1038 West Temple Street, demolition of a garage or carport recommendation approval.

And B29, 1038 West Temple Street, new construction of a garage or carport.

Recommendation approval.

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

I'm here for any questions.

So I have a question.

So just on the um the item for 1131 Dunbar that was on the agenda previously known as item number sixteen.

Is that been pulled from the from the list?

So uh we would like to acknowledge that the wrong agenda was printed and that there was there were only 29 items, so that uh item 16 was a typo.

So I item 1611 Dunbar Street should be.

It should be 15, yes sir.

Correct.

The correct item number for 1131 Dunbar is 15, and previously it said uh it was item 16 on the uh submitted drafts.

Okay, so I just want to go back and see where my numbers um, so I I have one additional number.

I guess I'm trying to just determine which I think.

Hi, this is staff person Samantha DeLeon.

So the wrong version of the agenda was printed on accident.

So as you can see on your agenda at this moment, item numbers.

Thank you.

So item 13 is still uh 4601 Oak Ridge, and that's the new construction.

I believe on your agenda it may show that it's a demolition.

That was uh removed from the agenda because we it was exempt from us.

I see.

So the former 13 has been removed, and what was 14 became 13.

So if you look at the agenda summary that is on your on in front of you, those are accurate.

This is accurate.

Okay.

I think I'm okay.

So I I understand the one on my list that I'm going to pull out that I'm gonna pull out the demolition.

Right, correct.

Okay.

Now I know that this is a long list of consent items.

Um at the same time, there had been a number, uh I've received a written list from Commissioner Davis.

And so I just want to review those numbers.

So Commissioner Davis, you have requested that we pull from the consent um items one and two, which are referring to 1512 Arlington Street.

You would like to pull items four and five at 1810 Courtland Street.

You would like to pull item six at 611 Omar Street.

Item 7 and 8, which refer to 805 Courtland Street.

Item 10, which is 1118 Tulane Street.

And you'd like to pull item 13.

Well, I think this would be item 13.

The address is 4601 Oak Ridge Street, which is now item 13 and 14.

Okay.

So that would be they were previously 14 and 15.

Right.

So there were three and now there are three items for that.

So we're gonna pull 14 and 15.

Sorry, 13 and 14.

Correct.

On the current list, and we'll pull item 15 at 1131 Dunbar Street.

And the final item is item 21 at 7718.

Sorry.

Yeah, I'm on the wrong list.

Okay.

Now Commissioner members, are there any other projects that a commissioner would like to remove to uh pull from the consent?

Commissioner Blodding.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

Um B3, B9, and B 20.

Is deferred by the applicant?

Apologies.

Just three and nine.

Okay.

Are there any other items that Commissioner would like to pull?

I would like to pull B 24.

And B 24 is now 1127 Green Street.

Correct.

Okay.

Now this time I open the public hearing.

I do have a few speakers signed up.

For some of these items, and two of the projects have already been pulled for consideration.

But I do have a speaker signed up for item 11 and 12.

There's another speaker.

Yes.

So I'm going to I'm going to pull items 11 and 12.

And I have a speaker sign up for item 18.

Which is a reference to 1012 Key Street.

And I just want to ask the uh the person who requested this, which is Brian Davis.

If you are in favor of staff's recommendation for this item, then we don't need to pull this, but if you would like it to be discussed, we can discuss it.

So I'm not hearing.

Okay.

So we will leave that on consent.

Commissioner Davis.

I'm sorry.

Um B-17, I believe that's one of the ones that I pulled.

It's not on this list.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Can I pull that?

You may.

Thank you.

Okay.

So Terrence, I'll need your help to go back through this list.

What's left of it?

I might need your help too.

I think I've missed one or two of them, but um I have B1, B.

Well, this will be easier.

I have B1 through 14.

Oh, you got it?

Thank you, Charles.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, really, I just want to review what's remaining on consultation.

Make it a shorter list.

Okay.

Uh we will have.

Okay.

I think Charles got the same thing.

Okay.

So I'm starting.

Yes.

So we got item 16.

B 18.

One second.

B 3601 wide out.

Okay.

So starting with B16.

Yes, sir.

Which is 3601 wide open.

Yes, sir.

And then 514 West Maine at B 18.

18.

B 19.

B22.

B 23.

B25, B26, B27, B28, and B29, excuse me.

Okay.

Okay.

I think it's just been deferred and we're agreeing that it's deferred.

That's all.

Okay, so I'll read out the remaining consent agenda, starting with item 16, 3601 White Oak Drive.

Yes, sir, that's correct.

Item 18 514 West Main Street.

Alteration addition.

Followed by item 19, 514 West Main Street.

New construction of garage.

Followed by item 22, 1231 Arlington Street.

Followed by item 23.

I'm sorry.

222 Westmoreland Street.

Followed by item 25.5613 and a half elementer road.

Item 26, 815 Arlington Street.

27, 709 Marshall Street, 28, 1038 West Temple Street, and item 29, 1338 West Temple Street.

Yes, sir.

And uh staff would just like to clarify because of the mistake uh for item B22.

Are you pulling 1231 Arlington or 1515 rightly?

Yes, we're right.

So I I think I listed 22.

I said it was 1231 at Arlington Street as a consent.

So 1515 Rutland Street will be discussed individual.

Okay, yes, that's what we have.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Commission members, is there a motion to accept the revised consent agenda?

So moved.

Broadback motions.

Is there a second?

Cosgrove seconds, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed motion passes, and we'll now move on for the individual consideration.

I'll be here for some time, so enjoy.

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

My name is Yasmin Arslan.

Today I submit for your consideration agenda item B1 at 1512 Arlington Street.

The property is a 1,235 square foot one-story contributing craftsman bungalow built circa 1915, located in Houston Heights East Historic District on a 6,600 square foot interior lot.

The applicant is requesting an alteration addition, which includes the following restoring the original L-shaped front porch by removing non-original enclosures, relocating windows, and reinstalling appropriate wood railing and brick column bases.

Removing non-original hardy siding at the porch base and replacing it with uh compatible material, including 117 wood siding.

Removing the existing rear wood deck and construction of a new story, uh two-story uh rear addition with the second floor encroaching on 25 percent over the um the original house.

Adding a new detached uh what do can I combine both?

I would ask you that you can you combine we do have a number of properties that have um the same address, so for the sake of time, let's let's review let's let's both both items uh one and two in this case.

Okay.

Adding a two-story garage and garage apartment at the rear of the lot with direct alley access, uh 528 square foot footprint, and a total height of 25 feet and six inches for the garage, all windows will be in set and recessed, um, and both applications meet Houston uh heights design guidelines.

Uh staff recommends approval for item B1 and B2, and the agent is here also to answer any questions.

Thank you.

I will open the public hearing at this time.

Is there anyone that would like to address the commission on this item?

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

Um item one or two, uh so I'll close the public hearing at this time.

Commission members, are there any questions of staff?

I have a couple of questions um for you.

I need some clarification.

Um the if I'm looking at the plans correctly, there is a side porch on the first floor, which is covered by the primary bedroom on the second floor.

And I know in the past that has been considered that that had to be considered then part of the FAR.

Is that correct?

Yes, but if if the if the porch is considered consistent with proportions of what a historic porch is, then that is allowed.

If it's a lot bigger, then we add that to we have it to the FAR.

That's been how we've been doing it.

Um, and okay, it's a hundred and sixty-five square feet.

So what do you have like a is there like a rule of thumb?

Well, I think there's another caveat.

Uh, can you the other way this is also looked at is that if the porch is added to the FAR, is it still within the allowable limits of the FAR?

Would you like to speak?

What do you mean you've done the calculation?

Um, yeah, I finally.

So excuse me.

If you could announce your name, just for the public.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Members of the commission.

Uh my name is Alia Deanda.

I'm a the agent um representing our clients of this project.

Um I believe this is kind of a standard side porch.

Uh normally they're eight feet deep to nine nine feet deep, and this is literally falls on what's normally on all the heights, and they always have like a back porch or side porch.

This is not out of our standard, and it doesn't fall out of the guidelines.

I think the question was also about the far.

Um, are you are you at the far currently?

Yes, uh, I believe we're below the FAR, but I would need to do the calculation to see if we add that um like how where we're where will we be at?

I can help you with that.

My remaining amount is 112 square feet, actually.

May I ask a question?

Please, Commissioner Davis.

So the house and the addition are 2792 square feet.

If you add 165.33, and then the garages are based upon the plans, are not 528 square feet.

The garage itself is 534, and the apartment above it is 5597 because there's a bump out on it.

And so if you add the overages on that, your total far is 2995.7.

So you're over by 91.7.

Just want to have the record corrected.

Not I'm not saying that this is the problem.

I just want to correct.

Sure, maybe we can have staff look at this uh item.

Can can staff thank you.

Think thank you for your answering the question.

Again, staff considered this um within the proportions of what historic porches are, and that is why they didn't look into including it in the FAR.

Okay, but I think the question was raised was the calculations that were provided by the applicant.

I don't remember what what's what was provided is is here.

Honestly, I've worked on many applications, so I don't remember specifically the square footage.

Um I do have another question.

Please, Commissioner Davis.

Okay, so um in the report, you have the sandborne map, but you don't have a date on there.

And I'm a little confused because I pulled the sandboard maps for 25, 50, and 61, and this does not appear to be the same map.

So is do you have an earlier than 2025 map that you could have used?

Yeah, we we do have it, and I I don't have the date here, but I pulled it from RZ drive from this.

Um Commissioner uh Bernie.

Sometimes you have a lot of experience.

If you look at it, can you remember the date?

Because I like I don't.

But we have from 1909, we have 1917, not for every historic district, but um we have it for a few.

It's probably 1924.

Okay.

It's not 1924, the addition.

Um get updated and updated, and they represent different time periods.

I just um it is hard to look at it and say, but because it's in color, um, it could be earlier.

It's hard to just look at it and say, Mr.

Davis, do you have a question about the information in the sandboard that differs from what you have seen?

In the sandboard that you looked at.

Beginning, so the the L shape, if the sandboard map in 1925 is correct, is not as pronounced as what they have here.

I don't know that that is a problem, but I do think that we need to know.

Please put the dates.

And I usually do, but we had a heavy agenda, so I apologize.

And um staff member um De Leon just told me that she looked it up in the Z drive, and there were two 1915 and 1917.

I'm sorry, 1917 or 199.

Okay, 1917 to 9919.

So, thank you.

Um, and if you could also put the picture the date of the inventory photos on the reports as well, that could be helpful as well.

Just we have that a note, and I don't I'm not asking you to tell me what date it was.

Sure, we'll I'm just saying that generally if we could have the dates for Sanborne maps, the dates for the inventory photos, that would be great.

Sure.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So again, I'll go back to your first question, though, about the FAR, because I was still trying to um, Commissioner Davis, you put together a different set of numbers than what's in the application, I believe.

I just calculated it differently.

They didn't add it, they didn't do a summary of it, so they uh, I guess there was an assumption it was 528 square feet, but it doesn't calculate to that.

And the question about the porch that you raise is that um porches um you know can be exempt.

They are um the definition of porches are defined as what is typical of the proportion and depth of porches, and that the definition of a porch seems to be satisfied by the application that we that as we did see, where sometimes we see very large um open spaces um which do not resemble porches or or within the store context, and so um it is within the discretion of this body not to account that space toward the farm.

I just want to understand whether the FAR is still as far as what the building mass or the recognition space is still within the FAR as you as you calculate that from staff's position.

Staff believes it meets FAR and lot coverage, yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Are there any other questions of the for uh staff on this application for items one and or two?

Is there a recommendation to accept staff's recommendation for items one and two?

Motion to accept staff approval.

Okay.

Okay, and any other discussion.

All in favor?

I okay, and that was for items one and two for staff's recommendation.

I'm sorry, was that Broadbeck and Side L?

That is correct.

Okay.

We were now moving on to item three, eighteen oh six state street.

Okay.

Um good afternoon, Chair Buchek, members of the commission.

This is staff member Yasmin Arslan.

I submit for your consideration agenda item B3.

The property is located at 1806 State Street in the Old Six Ward Historic District.

The site contains a historic um 1,096 square foot residence situated on a uh 400 4,300 square foot interior lot.

The structure is a contributing residence uh constructed circa 1890 and is um it's located in the old six ward.

The applicant is um uh proposing an alteration addition, which includes the following construction of a rear addition on both the first and second floor to increase overall living space, removal of um non-original structures, including the existing um garage, modifications of the homes total living area by adding first floor square footage, um, and the replacement of the existing 10 over 12 gable roof with a six over twelve hip roof.

Improvements uh to um removal of existing vinyl siding to explode expose and repair the original wood siding using salvage material from the rear installation of smooth um lap size uh fiber cement lap siding on the new construction.

This application received seven letters of support from the public and a letter of support from Old Six Ward Neighborhood Association Historic Conservation Committee.

Staff recommends approval.

Thank you.

At this time I open the public hearing.

I do have one speaker signed up to speak on this, which is the applicant, Sam Gianukis.

Uh Sam Janukas Creole Design.

You should have uh two more people uh signed up to speak on this one as well.

The owners are here.

I do not have anyone, but I will call for additional speakers when after you can conclude.

Okay, okay.

I'll have I'm I'm here if you'll have any questions.

It's pretty straightforward a little remodel.

Okay.

Thank you, Sam.

We'll let you know if we have any more questions.

Um if there's anyone else who would like to speak on this item, please approach the microphone and please uh state your name in the microphone for the record.

Hi, hello, good afternoon.

My name is Santiago Parra.

And uh together with my wife Charo, which is back here, uh we're the owners of 1806 State Street located in Old Six Ward.

Uh, we're here to present the project that is very close to our hearts.

The restoration and preservation of the original home of um has been thoughtfully designed in the addition of the rear of the property.

Before uh coming to the commission, we took the time to meet with our neighbors.

We talked with people from State Street and other streets.

Um we have received their support.

In addition, we met with the committee for the neighborhood, and they also um uh gave us their support.

So um I would like to respectfully ask for your uh request today that you you can give us your vote so that we can go ahead with with our project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And would your wife also like to speak?

Um, it is it is an it's an option.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

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

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

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

I don't it was pulled by a commission member, but I don't recall which one it was not.

I didn't have specific issue.

Okay.

Um it is true that many projects that pass under the consent when we first meet, um, are very nice projects, and we never review them because they get ex they get approved.

So um but with that, is there a motion to accept staff?

I see the motion to accept staff's recommendation.

Okay.

I'll give Hill the second on this one.

Um all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion passes.

We'll move on now to items four and five.

If we can present them together for 1810 Cortland Street.

Today I submit for your consideration agenda item B4 at 1810 Cortland Street, Houston Heights, um East Historic District.

The property includes a 1,782 um square foot, one-story wood single family residence and a one-story detached garage situated on a 11,220 um interior lot.

It is a contributing national folk pyramidal um craftsman style residence constructed circa 1915.

The applicant is proposing an alteration addition of a um 1,482 square foot um first floor addition at the rear of the existing contributing house, along with the with a 1,138 square foot second floor edition, constructed above the uh new first floor footprint.

The addition will have a ridge height of 29 feet with a 5 over 12 roof pitch.

The design um maintains all original corners of the historic structure and includes a side-covered patio at the right um at the rear-right side of the property, paired with a one-story conditioned living space.

Combining them both, as for the garage, a 462 square foot two-story detached garage with a garage apartment is proposed on the right side of the lot.

The new addition will be clad in uh six-inch reveal smooth cementitious sighting.

All new windows will be inset and recessed.

The new two-car um garage will be constructed but reoriented to face um the alley and both applications meet uh measurable standards and staff recommends approval.

I am not sure if the applicant is here.

Oh, he is here to answer any questions.

Yes.

Thank you.

I will open the public hearing at this time.

We don't have anyone signed up to speak on this matter, but if you are in the public, if if you're the applicant and you'd like to address the commission.

He said he only is available to answer questions he doesn't want to say.

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

Okay, not hearing, I'll close the public hearing at this time.

Commission members, are there any questions for staff for this items for items four and five?

Commissioner Davis.

Yes.

Um a clarification.

Um I may not be reading this correctly, but the EVE height for both the house and the garage is 23 feet.

Um but the standards allow a maximum of 20 feet if the side setback is less than seven feet, and 22 feet if the setback is over seven feet.

So on the garage side, there is less than seven feet.

And on the house side, um, I don't um, it's like a 22-foot side yard.

Um but just to clarification, I don't think it meets the Eve height standard if I'm looking at this correctly.

So I'll ask staff if they can um can clarify that aspect of the question.

So looking at them separate, I guess let's uh do you know them by heart?

Where is it?

Oh, do you do you know them by heart?

No, I know the height.

Okay, as me, let's go through the the proposal and just see what what they're called out as.

I'm sorry.

Let's just go through the in the application.

We can identify each of these independently, so for the house, it I think he's more he has because this is a wide lot, it seemed that he does have the the space for it, the site setback.

Um the resolution is not great.

The site plan has it blurry.

Um, sorry, I can't see.

That's for the house.

Um, but if you would to save time, if you would like to have it approval with the condition that he lowers it to 22 feet, we can.

I'm actually really trying to correct the record, the report so that it reads correctly.

I don't know that um, but it is over on the house side, it's still over one feet.

It's uh because the maximum is um 22 and it's 23, and on the garage, um, may I may I respond to that?

Um so heights design guidelines, other than this underneath it, but I did not put it in the in the design guidelines.

It does say that if the site setback, let's say is um eight feet, then you add one foot to the EVE height.

But I did not put that in the in the report.

It does say that in fine print.

Yeah, so I should have put it in.

Sure, yeah.

So so yes, I mean what you're saying is on the house, if it were seven feet.

Um, seven feet away would be twenty-two feet, but because it's eight feet, it's allowed to have twenty-three feet in height for the Eve.

But we can we can again, uh Commissioner, we can I will make sure that's fixed, but to if if you want to put a condition that he lowers it to twenty-two feet, are you okay with that?

If if that also solves it.

Yeah, I just forced for a confirm.

If it meets the design guidelines, there's not a need to change the height.

I just want to confirm the number.

I think that's part of the question, I think, for clarification.

I'm trying to look at the site plan.

And then the other question was about the garage um height for the Eve.

And I know sometime on these PDFs, there's a large scale paper, so when you they get condensed down, it's hard to read some of the numbers.

And I hope so.

Yes, but I mean, one if one remedy I might suggest is that if the if the commission wanted to accept staff's recommendation, they could say something to the effect that it meet the requirements of the of the design guidelines, so that if there is a discrepancy regarding any of these EVE heights that that the EVITs be lowered to meet the what is published, um you could offer uh if you were to make a motion, you might make a motion in such a way.

Asking for a clarification more so than a redo of the of the plans, sure.

So but I will say that this is a big home for the heights.

It's really big, and um we don't have it goes out on so you have a side um addition out to the side, and then you have the garage on the left.

And I know I sound like a broken record, but without a 3D rendering.

There is a 3D, he didn't finish it for the 3D for on time.

So if you can look at the final under supporting documents, it does have the 3D.

He did not finish it by the time that we posted drafts, and he sent it later.

So I added it under applicant supporting documents proposed 3D.

Okay.

Let me just take a quick look at that.

Um I thought there were no changes.

That seems to be a pretty big one.

Um again, it's legal can help with that under applicants supporting documents.

Um he could have brought it in and put it under the document.

We felt it was easier to put it as applicant.

That's not a change.

That's that's a 3D that the commission has asked for and encouraged to have.

So okay.

So I'm not seeing it.

Is it is it on B4 or B5?

It's on B4 under B4.

What page?

It's the it's the page before last.

It's on the screen if you would like to look at it.

Okay, I really wish so it's not so you're saying it's not in the package.

He did not submit it up for the package, so that we can't, and again, it's not we don't incomplete it because he doesn't have a 3D, and that is why.

I understand.

I understand.

Yeah, but my position is on something that is really massive without a 3D, it's not something I can approve.

However, looking at this, um I have it.

Do you want to tell us on me?

Can we tell it?

She's looking at it.

Mr.

Chair, I have another question from Commissioner Cosgrove.

Just he's been waiting.

Sorry, I'm just Commissioner Cosco.

In the staff report, you noted that the siding on the addition will have a six-inch reveal, which is slightly atypical for the heights.

And I wanted to know the thought process behind that.

In the past, we've encouraged people to stay with a four-inch reveal, which is more consistent with the original siding, and that the material difference is what differentiates the new from the old.

And if I may ask that's based on just like the standard wood bevel sighting in terms of how how far the wood could span before it would break, basically breaking it would snap in two.

So I think the the four inches was based on the materiality of the original type of sighting.

It's been has been my experience because it's a th it's a thin material, and if it the longer it gets them then it may have structural issues, so that's why the four-inch is common.

Um staff believed that in this instance it was differentiated that the addition had uh siding that was different.

Um but the applicant was saying that he's happy with whatever condition to put whatever reveal the commission finds appropriate.

Okay, thank you.

Now I have a question from Commissioner Broadback.

Um yes, given that there are discrepancies uh that were that Commissioner Davis has uncovered in the application.

Uh in addition to materials that were submitted after the application was publicly noticed, that we haven't had a chance to review before tonight.

Um, and that it sounds like there's some outstanding questions we're having trouble answering tonight.

I'd like to move to defer this application so that the applicant has an opportunity to complete what they'd like uh the commissioners to see, and then we can vote on a full package at that time.

I would like to go on record and say that there were no changes submitted.

Nothing was submitted after the deadline.

The 3D is not a must for a complete application.

On a Saturday, he sent it to me and said I was able to finish the 3D.

So instead of him bringing it to commission, showing it on the doc document, which he is allowed to do, um, it's um it's typical for us to put it under applicant's material under supporting documents, and the name speaks for itself, it's supporting document and legal can verify we've also checked with legal.

Yeah, and I would just say um we have a legal counsel advice that the applicant can bring uh a rendering to this meeting, um, and it is being submitted and was disclosed that it was that you that it's not it was on the packet on Friday, but as I asked earlier, did the design change?

My understanding is the design did not change.

Nothing.

The drawings are the same.

All he he did not have time to do the 3D, so we're only trying to help applicants.

Um he didn't submit any new material.

Again, this commission has encouraged uh applicants to go with 3D.

So including it was simply to help Commission make a determination.

We would have loved to have it on the draft.

Other applicants did submit it on time.

This one did not, and so, okay, and I just want to say I've heard two other comments.

One about having the siding have a four-inch uh overlap, uh matching this the historic uh use in this part of the district.

There's also been a question about the eve height that may relate to the garage.

It I believe that you satisfy the Eve height for the House in the questions.

But if that Eve height is a uh issue, a condition can be made that the Eve heights of both the house and the garage are confirmed to be in compliance.

Um, Chair, you still have a outstanding motion to defer.

I'm sorry, Frank.

And I wasn't aware that staff could respond to in a motion uh to a motion once it's made, but since staff responded, I'd like to respond.

Um my concern is that we are not the only audience when applications are publicly posted.

It's the public too.

And so if the public is not aware that new materials will be presented to the commissioners tonight, they don't know whether or not they want to come and testify.

They don't know whether or not that how can we or the public respond to things that were just now being shown.

Commissioner Davis just pointed out a moment ago that now that she's seen the 3D rendering, this is a big change.

That's what she said.

So that's why I'm making my motion.

So I'll I'll repeat the motion, my move to defer.

Okay.

I'll ask, is there a second to defer the project?

I need a motion to second in order to have a vote on deferring.

Okay, not hearing a motion, that motion doesn't uh doesn't uh pass uh to advance toward a vote.

Is there more discussion toward a different motion?

I make a motion to accept staff's recommendation.

Um amend your motion to accept the suggestion that the siding be four inches as put forth by Commissioner Cosgrove, and would you uh amend your motion to uh state per Commissioner Davis's question to just to confirm that the Eve heights are within the published um acceptable heights?

Yes.

Okay.

Is there a second to that motion?

Garcia's second.

Okay, before I call the vote, any other discussion.

Um, just want to point out we I have a legal um determination and instructions from the deputy Director that an applicant can bring an image in present it to this body at the time that we meet and that it's part of the public deliberation.

So any other discussion, I think um uh that I mean perhaps we ought to add that as an item to the workshop situation.

Um I believe it will be on the agenda, yes.

Okay.

Um because I think that every this this continues to be a topic, I think it's already an understood and accepted.

I don't know if I want to call it a rule, but uh procedure to for applicants to bring additional information to help uh see um each one of these proposed projects.

Um if I'm incorrect, please state otherwise.

But I think we're kind of moving off of target going over and over of additional information that's sort of the point is to try and explain.

I believe if we are concerned about that, an additional discussion surrounding what is allowed and what is not allowed should be had, and then we ought to write down what that rule is, and then it's clear whether or not you're violating it.

Understood.

And as you said, that we've had these this discussion in the last few meetings, and that's why I have asked that we have such a meeting, which was announced at the beginning of this meeting, and that we can review uh these items and any item that a commission member would like to discuss so that the commission can find consensus because it's this body and the will of this body to make your own, you know, rules.

And so since there have been questions, then we I'm asking that we have this meeting to resolve this.

Yes.

And with that, I will call the vote.

All in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Abstain.

Okay, that motion passes, and we'll move on to the next item.

Chair Buchak, members of the commission, this is staff member Arsline.

Today I submit for your consideration agenda um number B6 for 611 Omar Street.

The property is a 1,508 square foot two-story contributing American four square residence built circa 1912, located in the Woodland Heights Historic District on a 8,484 square foot interior lot.

The applicant proposes an alteration addition.

The applicant proposes a 556 square foot one-story um addition, and increase in um first floor area to 2,064 square feet.

No changes to the existing excess area, no changes to the structure.

Um design and material include a seven over twelve hip roof consistent with the existing structure, PR and beam foundation, and composition shingles to match existing fiber cement lap siding, four-inch reveal on the addition, existing wood siding to remain, wood columns, wood decking, and concrete block peer bases.

Staff recommends approval.

And this application received no um uh public comments or comments from the civic association that we are aware of.

Thank you.

Um I will open the public hearing.

I don't care if anyone signed to speak on this item, but if you are here in the audience and you would like to speak on this item, please announce yourself.

I believe the owners and the agent are here, but um do you wish to speak or only if there are questions?

Understood, okay.

I'll close the public hearing at this time, but if there are questions, I'll reopen the hearing.

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

None of this was also pulled by a commission member.

Um my question is uh if you guys, if you could check, it appears to me that the um original corner of the house is not exposed.

And I thought that that was one of the things that we look for is that the corners are exposed.

Sure.

Because this is the Woodland Heights, at the moment there's no uh guidelines for it.

So it's not a must to maintain all four original corners.

It is encouraged, but it's not a must to get an approval.

So that's my I just wanted to clarify.

Sure, no, that's the question.

Yeah.

Are there any other questions of staff on this item?

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

Cosgrave moves to accept staff's recommendation.

Escobar seconds.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

The motion passes.

We're moving on.

Item seven.

And if we could present item seven and eight uh together for 1805 Corbin Street.

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Um, Chair Buchak, members of the commission, this is staff member Yasmin Arslan.

I submit for your consideration agenda item B7 and B eight at um 805 Cortland Street, um Houston Heights, uh South Historic District.

Um, the property includes a 1,531 square foot one-story wood single family residence situated on a 6600 interior lot.

It is a contributing hipped bungalow style residence constructed circa 1915.

The applicant is proposing an alteration addition.

The proposed um uh it for two-story addition and a two-story garage apartment at the rear of an existing one-story wood uh frame contributing house.

It'll be um 927 square feet on the first floor, 643 on the second.

The addition will be clad in painted fiber cement lap siding with both six inch and two inch exposures and trimmed with cellular uh PVC trim.

The proposed eaves will feature exposed drafter tails to match the existing historic eaves, and roofing will be composition shingles.

The non-original rear door will be removed, two original windows on the rear elevation will also be removed while other existing wood windows will remain all new proposed um windows will be wood inset and recessed as for the um garage, it'll be two-story um garage garage apartment located at the rear of it of the existing of the house.

Um the garage will include a 528 square foot first floor on the first floor and 462 on the second.

The structure will be connected to the main house by an unconditioned breezeway on the first floor and a balcony on the second floor.

The exterior will be um clad with uh lap siding with um the same exposure as the house.

Um, and the roof will be finished with composition uh shingles.

Staff recommends approval on both items and is here to answer any questions.

The applicant and the owners are here as well.

Thank you.

Um I will open the public hearing.

I don't currently have anyone signed up to speak on this item, but if you are the applicant andor owner, and you would like to address the commission, please approach the podium.

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 at this time unless there are questions.

Well, we open.

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

Um, Commissioner Davis.

Um there are three things that stand out to me that I just need clarification on.

Um the report says that all proposed windows will be wood, inset, and recessed, but the window inventory indicates casement windows.

Um I don't know that casement windows are inset and recessed, are they?

They they can be.

I haven't personally done that, but then the other question would be if we look at the elevation, um, just calling out look at the south elevation, the rhythm of the windows is there isn't a rhythm.

Um and I know that last month um one of the applicants, I can't remember which one, it turned out that they had a um a clear story or a transome window, and it was in the package, but it had been taken, but that was there were two.

Um there was one with the trans window and one without, and it was my understanding that that staff advised the applicant to take to change the window.

And so since this week, we've got clear story windows coming out or ears on a number of applications.

I just would like to get some clarification on where we stand on that.

So we we looked at them.

Um, and again, this is a case by case.

In this instance, we felt that this is um on the addition, this is far to the back, this is an interior lot, and um it does read like an addition.

Um it does read like it's a product of its own time, and uh therefore staff um felt that they can recommend approval on this without the change in the windows, okay.

And my third question is there is a porch balcony on the addition, and I've never seen one of those.

In the context, Darrow, did was there any discussion about putting a porch there?

I'm sorry, the porch or the balcony.

I'm sorry, the balcony there's a balcony.

Because there's a porch and there's a balcony.

I'm sorry, so the balcony on the addition.

So was there any discussion about that?

There was discussion about it.

Again, because it's on an interior lot, it's on the addition, it's very deep.

Um not very visible from the right-of-way.

Um, and if you can see in the proposed 3D, um, so after several discussions about that, there were several discussions because your point is taken.

Um staff decided to go with what the applicant wanted, which is to leave the second story the that balcony, the way it is.

Okay, but it is very visible if you look at the 3D view.

It is anybody walking down the sidewalk, they will see that.

So I just want us to be consistent with what we're doing.

That uh the vice chair and I had when we reviewed this as we review all projects uh more than a week in advance of each meeting.

Um, but I think the the the main um the main issue um from at least from my perspective, is that the project, the addition itself, which starts at the rear of the existing historic home, is a product of our time.

Um, the proportion is still scaled back in um as the design sort of um it's not a giant block of of an addition.

It has many facets to it, um even the rear part of the rear porch that extends is not covered, so it's kind of stair stepping back like like a uh in a way just to kind of diminish the effect of that mass.

Um and so as has been the case with the previous commission, and in some cases, this commission um we have seen uh some projects that have toward the rear of the structure is slightly more I'll use the word contemporary, which um just to be mindful of contemporary everything that was once new when it was new was called contemporary.

So these the the this work home in the front was a contemporary structure when it was constructed, and um one of the what while many of the projects we see take a different uh tack uh tactic um how they make these additions, um this application was submitted in such a way to kind of give the addition a breadth of um our time, but be but still be very very recessive in how they made the presentation, so part of that is the massing part of that is as you mentioned the use of caseman windows, uh which are which occurred in the following period after this, which also differentiates uh their the re-edition from the main house.

And so um what I can say is that no one will have an issue with the false past because it the addition doesn't look like a um an historic structure that was intended to always be there, and so it is this gray area that that is in our ordinance um which uh looks at these items.

I can tell you nationally the national standards, which our standards are loosely based on do allow for more open interpretation of our of our time, but that is still proportionally recessive, and so um, but it's it's up to this commission to find consensus on on the overall design.

But again, and this could be an item, but we um it's different than what the meeting was outlined about procedures and and things, but in but in general when we have our um ongoing education meetings where we present things like this, that's it's a good time to kind of talk about about this um this aspect because it's tied to other aspects of whether someone wants a traditional detail and whether or not it's abstract enough or simplified enough.

It kind of this this is a conversation that's very much in line with that that discourse.

Are there any other questions of staff on this item?

And if not, is there a motion?

One quick question.

Presentation, you said that the siding was gonna match the existing house, but in the application, it talks about a six-inch reveal and a two-inch reveal.

And in this application, I'm less concerned with the six-inch reveal because the original house has differentiated siding on it, and I can understand the relationship between them.

But I just wanted to clarify which it was because the do the drawings in this case do show a difference in the siding width, whereas in the prior project, there was not a difference.

Would the architect like to speak about that?

Because on the project description, this is what I have six inch and a two-inch reveal.

But the house would have a four the origin the original house has a four-inch, I assume.

I'm sorry, can you say that again?

I when you first presented it, you said the siding was gonna match the original house, but then in the text it just says six and two.

So I was just trying to see whether it was matching the original or if it was indeed different.

I d in my script I don't see that I said match existing.

I'm sorry if I did, it's been a long day in many applications.

I apologize, but on my script, it does say the the six inch and the two inch.

Um would would the designer like to come uh specify?

No.

Yeah, I'll I'll ask a question of designer.

Um let me open the public hearing back up.

And the question, I think there were there were two questions.

What what is the siding reveal for the historic structure and um what is the um the siding reveal for the um for the addition and it and if um if the other could sit down for a moment, if you if you'd like to speak you you could you you can you can uh speak when the the speaker is finished, but um if you could in for you can start by stating your name for the public record, thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Lathan Henderson.

I'm actually uh one of the owners of of 805 Courtland.

Um I think the intent was to, you know, honor and match the historic uh character of the existing structure, and so if that did not come through in the wording, um I think we're certainly um flexible towards um, you know, yeah.

That amendment to that language.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um and then is there another speaker like to speak on this item?

I'm not uh on it.

I just let's get clear for you yes, I mean any additional information to share.

So on the on the 3D on page 14 of 22, the I guess it shows where the two inch is right under that window of the garage on top of the covering on top of the porch.

I believe that's where he's mentioning the two-inch.

Um in some periods it was custom to have a shorter review on the second floor to distinguish the first floor to create a base sort of a layered base uh uh.

But again, if commission would like to make a motion for the siding to match that addition, we are happy to make sure that happens.

Yeah, and my question you asked me was just what is the exposure on the main house.

Um, did the contractor know that?

Is the gentleman prepared to speak to the commission or could he could he address the commission?

Um, if you could begin by stating your name for the microphone.

Good afternoon, Commissioner.

My name is Alberto Bacca.

Hi, and so my question was do you know what the current exposure for the siding is on the on the primary historic structure at the street.

And if you don't know, you don't know.

I'm just curious.

The existing house at the bottom below the windows, I believe it's seven and a quarter, I'm pretty sure.

And the top is uh because this one has um vinyl siding, which is not original.

So the top uh portion of the uh of the siding, I believe is four.

I know we wrote it somewhere.

I'm sorry, I I don't remember top of my head.

But that's what we're matching.

Um I just said one additional question.

Do you know under the vinyl siding is original siding that actually is still existing?

Yes, and we're gonna expose it.

We took a picture in and um that's what we trying to find.

Okay.

So but I know the bottom portion of the siding is seven and a quarter in the upper part, it's uh, it's closer together.

Four, I think it's four.

And that's what we're matching at the at the window, you know, on the uh gable on the second floor of that garage apartment.

So we try and incorporate some of that also into the design.

Okay, thank you.

And uh I know we uh this is what one have one more owner to pr to speak if you would like to speak.

Um, okay.

So I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Seidel, you have a question.

Yeah, um, so I mean, on the elevations it's clearly called out what the exposure is supposed to be.

This is one of those situations where I don't think that looking at a 3D rendering to try and determine the exposure, you know, for us, I mean e for a builder, even if you use a seven and a quarter inch siding, you can play with exposure.

Obviously, from a pricing standpoint, it becomes not smart, so you buy separate sizes.

So what what I'm say what I'm trying to say is who I don't know who the the architect is, but you're pointing to a section and calling it three-inch exposure and six-inch exposure.

So I don't know where we go from here, but if if you say you are going to match, like, then you need to know what the exposures are and have your arrow say that exact dimension for clear.

Sure.

My experience is having measured exposure on older homes is that every time I measure a board, it's actually slightly different by a very small amount.

And typically it's because just like when you're laying bricks sometime, they wanted to make the course course with the windowsill or some feature so that the you did you had full boards and you didn't have to cut the boards or trim them down, especially when we only had handsaws and someone had to sharpen those cells every night because they got dull.

So what I would recommend, having heard that there's original siding under this vinyl siding that's going to be exposed, that someone, if someone wanted to make a motion to support staff's recommendation, they could simply say the siding on the addition will match the siding as found on the main structure and with the knowledge that there's a bit of difference in terms of what those sizes are because even if if either as an architect, if I said to put some siding up at certain exposure, the person putting it up is going to put it up.

And if I go back and measure it, it's not going to be exact, I promise you.

So but I think if it does match the appearance, which is the intent of the owner as stated, then I don't see an issue with that approach.

But is there any other questions, or if not a motion?

Mr.

Garcia.

For commissioners uh Davis and Sadio.

I agree with everything with everything they're saying on this.

Um this is one of those um rare examples where a rendering doesn't really reflect what's being built.

If you look at the 2D dimension, um, or the two D drawings and then the um the renderings, it's it's hard to convey what the building's gonna look like when you have railings that don't match what's shown in our some of the railings are missing, and some of them look like chicken wire and um the upper ones on the rendering look like some time uh print scroll or something, but the rendering shows um uh I mean to me it looks like hog wire on the on the side south side elevations.

Um I think it's important when we do request renderings, or if if we're going to make that um uh a bullet point that they be detailed, or you know, there needs to be a minimum level where we can accept them or not accept them.

Um, I guess we couldn't do that.

Uh an applicant can submit whatever they want, but um, there just needs to be uh a point where the renderings are are reflective of what's going on, especially if they're submitted with the documentation of what's going on on the 2Ds.

Um and I think if that happened, a lot of the concerns would be alleviated.

Is there a motion to except staff's recommendation and andor with any amendments?

I'll move to accept staff's recommendation with the condition that the once we know what the siding is on the original house that it an effort is made to make the addition consistent.

May I ask a question about that?

Because he has the six inch and then he has the two or three inch underneath that.

Do you want everything to have that?

No, I'm fine with the differentiation, and it appears as if maybe there is some differentiation on the original house, which is what I was saying.

Like, I understand there's gonna be a relationship between the original house and the addition, but it's hard to know because we don't know what the actual sighting is on the house.

So, you know, I I trust that staff can handle reviewing that, and I'm willing to put forth the motion with that caveat.

We appreciate your trust, sir.

Second, okay.

Browning seconds all in favor.

Any opposed motion passes.

We will now move on to items number nine and ten.

Well, sorry, nine.

Um at 1011 Fugate Street.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the HHC.

This is staff Person Terrence Jackson, and today I'll submit to you item B9 at 1011 few gate.

The property includes the historic one thousand seventy-eight square foot one-story wood framed single family bungalow style residence constructed in 1926 with the detached garage apartment.

The property is situated on a 5,000 square foot lot.

The property is located in the Nor Hill Historic District.

The applicant is proposing to construct an interior remodel of the existing garage, construct a 578 square foot one-story addition, construct the addition with 6 over 12 roof pitch to match the existing.

The Eve height of the addition will be 15 feet 3 inches with a maximum ridge height of 17 feet and 11 inches.

The applicant also proposes to demolish the existing garage roof ridge of 21 feet and 7 inches and propose a new ridge height of 24 feet 2 inches.

The applicant proposes to construct the addition with the with the home.

I mean, I'm sorry, to the home with a five and a half inch reveal with cementation siding, change the finestration on the existing garage.

Remove one of the garage doors to cover and cover with cement tissue siding.

Constructs the addition with competition composition roof singles, new windows to be wood or wood clad windows.

It's in set and recess.

Staff recommends approval.

Chair and HHC, I'm available for questions, and this concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Terrence.

Um I will open the public hearing at this time.

I have one speaker signed up, which is Sam Gianukis.

Thank you, Terrence.

Sam Janukas, uh only if y'all have a question or anything.

I think uh this was again pretty small addition to this using the existing garage that's in place.

Uh I think it worked out pretty well.

But if y'all have any questions, let me know.

Thank you.

We'll let you know if we have questions.

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

Not hearing anyone, I will close the public hearing.

Are there any questions of staff?

This was another uh item that was pulled.

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

I motion to accept.

C Smith.

Commissioner Carl Smith makes the motion.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

That's side L.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion passes.

No, we want to item 10.

Chair, members of the HHC.

Again, this is Staff Person Terrence Jackson.

I submit to you item B 10 at 1118 2 Lane.

The property includes a historic 943 square foot one-story craftman style wood single family residence situated on a 60 600 square foot interior lot.

Located located in the heights historic district.

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 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 number to be to be put back in place as closely as possible.

Staff believes this would be this would place a huge financial strain on the project and would ask that to HHC consider the stone be replaced with siding or provide other suggestions.

The applicant proposes to construct the 1,770 square foot rear rear edition first and second floors.

The first floor will have a 732 square foot addition, and the second floor addition will be 1,038 square feet.

They would like to maintain the existing windows and doors, partially demolish the rear wall to accommodate for the addition to be construct constructed with a max ridge height of 2610, 26 feet 10 inches, construct the second floor Eve height at 20 feet seven inches to the top of the Eve.

Construct the roof with new composition shingles with a five over 12 roof pitch.

The existing four over 12 roof pitches to is to remain.

They will construct the home with a nine foot first floor ceiling height and a nine foot uh second floor ceiling height.

Installed new windows to be wood or wood clad, wood or wood clad, inset and recessed on the addition.

The addition will also be clad with smooth semen tissue siding and trim at the addition.

Existing finished floor height is one foot three inches, and it will be raised to two feet for the for the alteration, and they will repair the existing facial and soft fit within kind materials.

Staff recommends approval.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I will open the public hearing.

I don't have anyone sign up to speak on this item, but if you are here in the in the audience and you would like to address this item, please announce yourself.

Um yes, I am very concerned about the loss of the original material of the stone on the house, and it is original.

I actually pulled the archive, and this is original stone.

Having been on the other side with a house that had stone, we provided engineering reports, we did we jumped through all kinds of hoops to try to determine whether the stone could be saved or not.

And I just want to know what has been done to make me feel okay with taking the stone off.

Um I mean, so the applicant is not here to plead their case, uh, but I will say that staff went to the uh library to get the sandborn map.

Um, and I believe you will see on one of the pages, um, because the sandborne maps are pasted on top of each other.

Um, we are not sure if the staff is, I mean if the stone is original, because it the sandborne that we found that that's in color, um, we don't know when that date was.

It could have been 61, it could have been 55, uh, but it was pasted over the original sandborne, colored sandborne to be able to tell if the stone was original.

So um I would be inclined to know what research you did to find out that the stone was in fact original and what year that was.

Okay, so I just asked to pull the archives, and um the earliest date I have is from uh 1927, and it clearly says that it was stone.

Okay, so um I mean, you're obviously obligated to uh decide if you don't want the stone to be removed, um, but as I mentioned, I believe last month when the project was deferred, um, the stone is severely destroying this home.

Um I can't even get in the house to take photos so you can see the foundation because of how unsafe it is.

Um it's either we allow them to remove the stone and place it on pallets like was previously suggested, and they put it back up after they repair the foundation and the framing, or um we allow them to remove the stone and um they are able to shore up the uh foundation and framing and they be allowed to put siding.

Um again, as that's a staff recommendation.

It's you guys are welcome to discuss it, but but staff having been inside the house years ago and seeing the home and what has been done to it or what the stone has done to it, um staff felt that um a financial hardship would more than likely be uh enacted because of the amount of uh because he has to or whoever the applicant may be um would have to um have a stone contractor or would have to locate that stone track contractor, have them remove the stone piece by piece, place it on a pallet, secure it so it doesn't get damaged by the uh elements, then repair the foundation and put it back up piece by piece, like I mentioned.

So um again, uh open for you guys to discuss it, it's just a staff recognition.

Sure.

And my uh uh ginger uh ginger Bernie.

So as we mentioned the sandborne maps earlier, if you look at the black and white one, you see it just says D, and then you look at the later one, it's clearly it says the V E N apostrophe D means veneered.

So there's a change from that uh earlier one, um showing indicating that the stone looks like it was added later, like it's not original.

I mean it could have been added in the 40s, 50s, up to 1961.

You can see it's pasted over.

That was what I was talking about, that it was um they updated these sandborne maps over the years, but um if that that drawing, that black and white version, it doesn't indicate it's hard to tell without the color, but it doesn't indicate like the second one that it's veneered.

That's my general assessment from looking at it.

Again, what is the date of the sandborne map you're looking at?

Okay, the um it can get confusing, but the black and white version must be from 1924-ish, yes, ma'am.

And um the sandboard company would send a representative out to update the maps over time, and so the second one that you're looking at, you see a correction record.

That's when they would send the representative out to resurvey.

Um this one was beginning in 1942.

They sent their representative out to correct that 1924 sandborne map.

Um you can see they corrected it over time, 42, 43, 44, up through 1961.

So the one that you're looking at where it says veneered could have been updated in 1942 or 61 or anywhere in between then, but it is um after the 20s.

Whereas you can see the black and white one, it doesn't say veneered, and that's the earlier one.

I just I don't understand because this says 1927, yeah, and it has the veneer on it.

So I and so I don't know.

Well, what if I may, so one thing uh Mr.

Davis, did you request a supermission from the Harris County archive question?

So and so um what you were saying may be true, um, but is also true that the house is older than that date and didn't have the stone, and then it got picked up at a later date when that when they came back to do the revision, which was much later, perhaps in the 40s, because the change did occur in the twenties, but they didn't catch it till the 40s.

But it does it it it it appears to me and I'm open that the original house was still built without this uh stone siding on it.

It's my under my other understanding is that um there may not be a proper foundation for this stone, which is part of the issue of why this house has suffered, because sometimes when things are veneered, they don't have a serious grade beam uh installed.

I've seen that occur.

And then what is occurring, there's so much rotten wood and termites behind this stone that the stone has to be removed in order to make the repairs, it's my understanding.

And you know, if the stone was original, one could say we wouldn't put it, have it put it back on.

I don't know that we need to number it.

I don't know of any stonemason that would number for a house like this, but you could put it back up.

If it's not original, because we look at this examination, then we could entertain a different material.

It's up to the commission.

Um, but it it could be that the document you're looking at, was it was it a renovation, or that's when it was construct that was built from new construction.

This is the tax assessment from 1927.

So sometimes it's new construction, sometimes it's uh it's a renovation that takes place.

But is it does it state anywhere?

Does it state it?

Uh just for I'd like to make a comment because I failed to mention it, and it is in my staff report.

This home was uh built according to our records circa 1915, which is probably one of the more earlier ones that I've ever seen.

So I just want to throw that out there.

So it it could be that it was built in 15, it's recorded as a frame house on that early um 1924 sandborne.

It might have been changed in 27 and then it didn't get picked up until the 40s or later.

Um, but that would mean that it's it wasn't original to the home, is what I'm saying.

If if uh if what I said is true.

And I can I can totally understand that, but you could save me a lot of time and heartache if you just put the date on the Sanborne map in the in the CLA.

Sure.

Well, and it's Commissioner Carsgrave, I have been on this commission many years and um uh Ginger Burney has not been on this commission all those years.

So we never had an expert witness that we could call a lifeline and actually ask them a question, like on a television show.

So um I appreciate having the ability to have an expert witness that's always here to help us.

But again, that's why you should go to the library because a lot of information is held there that could help you discern um your historic building.

So I my understanding is the stone does need to come off to make the repairs.

It doesn't appear that the stone is original uh what to put back as a condition, whether stone or the siding that the applicant uh asked for is up is up to the consensus of this body.

So um, Commissioner Blakely, sorry, the sandborn uh that's in the package shows an accessory structure that also seems to have been veneered, if I'm reading the notation correctly.

Is that still there, and if so, is there stone on it?

Uh so I'm gonna be honest, I do not recall.

It's been years since I've been out here.

Um yeah, I I would love to answer that question, but I I just do not know.

I'm sorry.

Commissioner Broadback.

Two questions.

Um, first for Commissioner Davis, are you convinced that the stone is not original, or is that still an open question for you?

I'm going with Jenjar on this.

Okay.

Second question, um, legal clarification.

Um, is anything that's not original not historic?

So if a house is built in 1920 and someone did cool stuff to it in 1921, is nothing that happened in 1921 considered historic for the purposes of this commission or not.

I'm afraid I do not know the answer to that.

Yeah, I I can try to answer the question though.

It depends.

So if if a change is made within the period of significance, it could be considered historic.

It has to do with uh whether it added significance or not uh to the structure, or whether perhaps it was um if it did not add ex significance, like it was an odd addition, um, then it would not be considered um important resort of fabric.

The other thing I will mention is that by adding the stone applied as a veneer, which basically trapped moisture uh behind the stone where their wood was, which then allowed it allowed the wood to rot and fall apart and disintegrate or it it appears that this alteration added to the demise of the house structurally.

So um one could state that this was an adverse effect to do this the way they did it.

If maybe if they had had moisture barrier behind it, maybe that you know they might not have caused that damage.

But um maybe if it had a proper foundation, it's will I think it's within the discretion.

I will say this.

So the commission has allowed removal of even a stork masonry to make repairs and then put the put material back on.

And again, the commission could give grant approval to remove the stone to make the repairs, and then based on what is found in that process, one could reevaluate the decision of what to put on in terms of the siding of the house.

It's really up to this body to decide.

So, Mr.

Chair, to clarify what I think I heard was the answer to the question is it's objective.

It is subjective, yes.

Okay, it's but it's whatever we decide.

Yes, the consensus of this body, yep.

Okay.

Commissioner Davis, do you think that the stone contributes to the historic quality of the original structure or not?

And I'm asking you, because I commend you for doing your outside work.

Um so please enlighten me.

You know, I think this house is endorable and I love the stone on it.

But if indeed it is not original, and if indeed when you start taking the stone off, if you find that there really is no found no structure behind it, then I have to agree that it needs to come down.

And that's why I mentioned that I'm when I've done this before I had engineer reports that I could clearly say, you know, this is what it is.

So um I I'm I'm happy with this.

I have one other comment though, if we could move off that, is that the um and I hate to be harping on this, but if somebody is going to go through the pro the effort of providing a 3D rendering, could you ask them to do it correctly?

Because this 3D rendering is done looking down on the project, which gives you zero reference as to how that is going to um it needs the 3D rendering appropriately needs to be done at ground level from the middle of the street, is my understanding.

Well, um so this is what we would call an axonometric drawing.

So it's a it's a 3060 shift and it's uh it's a projection essentially to understand the massing.

So it's not a it's it's not a rendering or even a perspective in that but it's more of a the technical term is an axiometric.

Um my understanding is that these are not required, but they are provided by the applicant.

There have, I mean, there I don't get off agenda.

There have been discussions about whether we should require renderings or not, and part of the discussion is it's another financial burden to an applicant, and again we try trying to make this process easy for for folks, and so projects that are more complicated generally have them, and smaller projects don't have them.

Um but that that's to your answer that that's they're not required to provide it, they did require this for our benefit to understand the massing.

Uh, is my understanding.

So with that, I we need a motion to advance this.

Okay.

Okay, so let me two more questions.

So Cosco, Mr.

Cosgo first.

Okay, I'll make it quick.

The five-inch reveal on the siding, I understand.

What is the intended reveal on the siding that is going to be put on the original house?

And it would it says wood siding.

Is that salvaged wood siding?

Is that new wood siding?

It would be new, uh, according to the conversations I've had with the uh agent.

Okay.

Um we didn't discuss the reveal.

Um so I I mean, if we I can tell you if we make a motion and you and and yet they are allowed to get the siding, they will be happy to put whatever reveal on there that you I mean.

I think that would be somewhat driven by the context area.

I, you know, I mean, I might have to defer to to the staff to to make a final determination.

My other point is in the proposed elevation, they show that the stone is remaining on the front porch columns.

Is that their intention or is that just a um oversight in the drawing?

Um because I would offer this that the porch columns would give them an opportunity to reuse some of the stone and pay homage to the stone as as would the the exposed um piers under the house.

I mean, a lot of people trim those in brick, yeah.

And in this case, since they have all the stone, it is possible that if this body is interested, that there is a way to incorporate some of this stone into this design.

You know, I'm not saying that everything has to match exactly as it is now if it all has to come off, but it is just a way to like honor a little bit of this past that we are unsure of, as you said, like is it part of the fabric or not?

But if we could honor it in some way, maybe there is a compromise to be made.

Uh so when I when I asked the architect to make the changes, he he purposely left the columns like that.

So I'm going to assume that that was his intent.

Um I absolutely love the idea of of incorporating the stone um as the foundation as part of the foundation.

So I mean they're not here to agree or disagree, but like I said, I uh I think this this project has um I mean I think in preservation track we've seen like five or six different COAs of this project and how it's come back and and all those good things.

So um I think they would be happy to do so.

Um but uh if you make the motion.

And if there was siding before the stone, it could even still exist or a piece of it might remain under the stone, yes.

Yes, sir.

So okay.

Commissioner Blakely, you had a question.

Um just a small point.

I I think I I appreciate the amount of work that's gone into the various applications around this, but I think it's important that the drawings on record be complete and accurate.

And so um I also was wondering about the stone uh columns, but also on the following page 17.

There are a number of arrows with no text next to them.

So I I would hope that maybe those notes could actually be put on the drawing.

I'm not sure.

Some of them point to the siding, and maybe they're the same, like as on the page 16, like existing or proposed concrete foundation blocks or um proposed siding, but um and then on page 18, some of the text is also cut off.

So I would just really like to see all the details on the drawings.

I think this is something we mentioned last time.

Um okay, I mean we can we can make note of that.

I just want to like we're taking drawings that are meant for 24 by 36 sheet and putting them on an eight and a half by eleven.

Um so I I'll speak for myself, I won't speak for the rest of the staff, but you know, sometimes when I get elevations, I do cut it off, especially if it's not something that's not already listed in my description on the front page.

Um if it's listed in my description on the front page, I'll just clip it off and leave the I mean, because I can't erase the arrow um graphically in Microsoft Word.

So not making excuses here, but that's the reason why you don't see some of those arrows.

Um and to answer your other question, the structure in the back is no longer there.

So I don't know if it's clad in uh stone or not.

But um mental note has been made about the um notes.

I guess we could somehow provide an overall and then I could blow it to then blow it up and just provide both.

Um, and then you know that it may be set may maybe that will satisfy the uh need to have complete have the drawings appear to be complete.

So my apologies for that.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion.

Um given the fact that there uh to Commissioner Blakely's um point there were some notes that were cut off that um it sounds like she would have liked to have known what they were, mixed with the uncertainty around the builder's intent for what or if they plan to do anything with the stone, mixed with a consensus I'm feeling around the table that we would like to see something related to the original stone or semi-original stone as a part of this.

I would propose that we defer to give staff a chance to fill in those notes and then to give the builder an opportunity to come back to us and be very clear about what their intent for the use of stone is.

Okay, is there a second?

I'd like to comment.

Um I would ask that that the plans moving forward include uh something to something to the fact that the the trim out around the windows and the doors on the original house match the context area.

That they have wood trim and they're boxed out as if they were weight-driven windows as they were.

Yes.

But is that a second?

That is a second.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

And just a comment.

Um while I agree with Commissioner Crossgrove and Commissioner Broadback about the aesthetic nature of the stone, it seems as if based upon Ms.

uh Commissioner Bernie's uh comments that we don't have evidence that the stone existed at the time and it is out of context in that area.

Are we overstepping our role and interfering with property rights by m uh proposing a motion which requires the use of stone which was not present at the time it was constructed?

I think it's a consensus of this body to determine what's appropriate.

I mean I think we, as you pointed out, have heard um it was my understanding going into this meeting that the stone was not believed to be original, has caused damage to the original structure, and I have heard evidence today's uh bolstering that with numbers and also uh justifying when that per the chag the change actually occurred.

So I think we learned likely occurred in 1927, but to your point it's not original.

And you know, I think the stone needs to come off to fix the fix this this problem itself.

Um but again, but I have a motion in a second, so I would I'm required to have a vote on that.

Um, can I comment on my question?

But let's just go in order.

So Commissioner Blake, do you have a question?

Question.

What is the period of significance for the heights?

Can you answer that question for this portion of the heights?

What is the period of significance?

It goes to 19 like 40 something.

That's it.

I have been uh told that the end is 1940.

Okay.

Okay.

Now was there another comment?

If the period of significance is that late, then we maybe should count the stone as sort of material to what this house should be like, right?

Or if it was later.

If it was earlier, I guess we would count no stone as the contributing condition of this house.

So I just want to put that out there.

Sure.

I think one one could one could make that which was part of Mr.

Broadback's question earlier.

Um I just want to preface that that it would largely depend on how that stone was also installed.

So if it was installed in such a way without a proper foundation or such a way that caused the structure to fall apart, then that could be an adverse that could be adverse to this to the actual remaining historic structure.

So that's where each of these is subjective to each of these different cases, and it's unclear.

The condition I've just been described to me is how much it's been rotting and how they need to remove the stone to put it back.

But um I mean, you all could ask for more information, which is, you know, to understand what that stone is like, but I I need a call for I do once discussion is over, I do need a call for the vote, so that that we have Commissioner Davis.

You have a question or I do um because once they take this stone off, this house, the roof may be the only thing that's making this house not fall down.

So when they remove that stone, that may indeed happen.

And so the question is, I don't know why they didn't ask for demolition permit based on that.

So my experience is if you have a good contractor, they will require shoring, likely, and um if you have effective shoring, then it will not fall down.

But there may be a lot of reconstruction as to your point.

Right.

But the problem that I have with these houses when I'm driving around in the heights, and I see all you all you have are four corners and nothing else is there, then I have to ask the question.

What was the point?

Just a observation.

Mr.

Chair.

Um point of discussion.

Um to Commissioner uh Blakely's point from a moment ago.

I did consider making a motion to approve with the condition of uh removing and reusing all of the stone.

But then I thought that might not be such a cool thing to do to the builder and the owner because we don't know whether or not they can do that.

What we don't know right now is what the builder plans to do with the rocks.

And I think knowing that would help us move this one forward because Commissioner Davis, you're right.

It's a it's an a really cool house.

And to know that that rock has been there for at least 99 years, um I think we should think carefully before we just say yeah, you can get rid of it.

Okay, so I have a motion.

Sorry, you have another comment?

Yeah.

Can you restate the motion?

I we've had some discussion.

Commissioner Mark, you restate your motion.

Motion to defer the application uh to give staff an opportunity to um put the additional detail back into the application packet and to give the builder an opportunity to give us their plans for the stone.

And there was a the second had a caveat to add more information about the trimming out the historic window openings with proper wood trim, which was not evident in the drawing.

You you agree to that amendment.

Amenable, yes.

All in favor of the motion.

All opposed.

Okay, so Browning opposes that motion passes, and we'll move on to items eleven and twelve.

Okay, so um items eleven and twelve are uh deferred by staff.

Uh however, we do have speakers here.

Um I have a script prepared for the presentation of the actual project.

But because it deferred, I think it's imperative that I give you guys the information that the speakers are going to be um referencing.

Um so two zero to east 31st and a half, um is a well was a contributing home in Starkweather.

Um in October of 2025.

Um staff received a call that a um that this home had been demolished.

Uh after investigating and speaking with uh one of the residents who live close.

Um staff did their due diligence and did their research, and what we found out was that um when this when the Starkweather district was created, um there were about three houses that did not get the historic holds placed on them.

Um 2023 east 31st and a half was one of those homes.

Um staff has since then gone in and put the proper historic holds on all the properties, which is why this project is before you now.

Because when the uh owners and agent submitted the project to permitting the historic hold was then triggered because it was there now, and they sent their plans to us.

They deferred the application last month, and so here we are now.

Um the applicants are proposing something totally different, which you will see next month, but uh staff has deferred the application because there is no demo application and we cannot approve a new construction before a demo application is submitted and or approved.

Uh so therefore, um we are here, and I will if you would I mean if you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them, but we have some speakers who have been waiting, and uh I think uh we should let them speak and uh you don't have to look at my pretty face any longer.

Thank you, Chair.

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

I do Chair, if I may just to get some more context because I've been working with Terrence on this one.

Um so there was no COA for the demolition, so that occurred without a COA.

The code kind of splits, um, or the ordinance splits on how you treat a demolition that was done without a COA.

So you can read it strictly, uh part of the code or the ordinance says if a demolition occurred without a COA, you can't no one can issue a permit for that location for two years, and even then that after that two years, um it has to be the same size, around the same similar size.

Then after 10 years, um that size limitation is removed further down in the code, same section.

Sorry, keep to me it's the code, it's the ordinance.

Um there's a sort of content, there's a provision that talks about what can be done uh for work that was done outside of a COA or without a COA.

Um I think that that part of the code was written more to address, you know, someone did their addition, but they put in vinyl windows.

So this the commission would go in and and uh issue a COR for those people to go in and continue to do the work to remediate or they would change the the vinyl windows to what the commission allows.

The but this portion of the code also says, you know, this uh the COR that the commission can issue extends to work that was done without a COA.

This demolition is work that was done without a COA.

So it's kind of unclear as to how much the commission, you know, can the commission issue a COR for the demolition and then a COR for uh construction, or is it or are they limits to just the reconstruction?

Can it only be uh can what was demolished be the only thing that's built or can something new be built there?

So it it's kind of unclear.

I think that it it's something that warrants discussion amongst the commission just because this is kind of a strange scenario as to um the sequence of events, but I just want to provide that background context and what I've been reading for the code there.

So I'm happy to talk more about that as we go along.

Thank you.

I think we will have more questions um from the commission members.

Um but I would like to open the public hearing to, because I do have two speakers signed up, so at this time I open the public hearing.

Um the first speaker is uh I believe it's Dr.

Sabrina Noreen.

And maybe Mr.

Norman.

Can you say it to say?

Dr.

Sabrina Norman Norman, okay.

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

Okay.

Good afternoon.

My name is Dr.

Sabrina Norman.

And I am an original owner of a house on Stark Weather where this occurred.

My address is 114, East 31st and a half street.

And my um house is 82 years old.

I am the youngest on the street.

And I'm 70.

So I'm here speaking for everyone else who could not attend because of the mobility and age.

We are enraged.

Why?

It's because the city of Houston illegally demolished that house.

I was on the original committee with Tanya DeBose.

And so the house has been demolished illegally.

What we're asking for is that no construction be completed on that house until the city of Houston come before the committee and explain this transgression to us.

No one knew about it, only me because I lived on the street, and I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

We're also asking that the historical commission for us is to make sure that any future development adheres strictly to the prescribed guidelines set forth in the preservation manual that was copyrighted in 2013.

We're still not happy.

Because if they don't come before us and explain this transgression, I'm sorry, all mayhem is going to fall off.

We did not have the public media with us today.

They wanted to be with us.

We did not want them here to us today.

And we certainly do not want to be in any legal entanglements.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker signed up is Tonya Wells.

Good evening, Commission.

My name is Tanya Wells.

I am the executive director of the Independent Heights Redevelopment Council.

I'm here today to formally object to any proposal to redevelop any plans associated with the property located at 202 East 31st and Half Street following the unlawful demolition of the historic home that once stood on this site.

This matter represents not only the loss of the historic structure, but also a failure of oversight, accountability, transparency, and protection by the city of Houston.

The community trusted that historically significant properties would be safeguarded through the city's preservation processes.

In this case, that protection failed.

Yet even more troubling is that the city failed to openly communicate the circumstances surrounding this demolition to the affected community.

Residents were left without transparency, without timely information, and without meaningful engagement regarding the loss of a structure that contributed to the historical identity of the area.

Additionally, the city failed to honor prior commitments with the independence heights redevelopment council on matters impacting the historic independent heights community.

Community members were previously assured that organizations such as IHRC will be included in discussions and decision making processes regarding preservation, redevelopment, and matters affecting the integrity of the neighborhood.

However, the city now conveniently claims to have no record of such commitments or agreements.

This pattern of disregard raises serious concerns about the city's intentions and its continued failure to protect the independent heights community from displacement, erasure, and the destruction of its historical identity.

To many residents, these actions reflect our motion to extend speakers' time by one minute.

Is there a second?

All in favor?

Okay, please proceed.

To many residents, these actions reflect our broader pattern in which the community's concerns, history, and preservation efforts are systemically ignored in favor of redevelopment that diminishes the cultural legacy of Independence Heights, the first black town in Texas.

The city must not now allow that failure to be rewarded through approval of incompatible redevelopment.

I want to clearly state for the record that no plan should be approved for this property unless the replacement home is built in the image of the original structure, including comparable architecture character, scale, appearance, and historical precedence.

Anything less would establish a dangerous precedent that historic homes can be demolished unlawfully and replaced with entirely different construction without meaningful converse consequences or restorative action.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Okay, I want to close the public hearing at this time, then I'll ask Commission members if there are questions of Terrence and I understand this this issue's been deferred, but I think there'll still be more questions.

Absolutely.

Commissioner Blakely.

So I'm guessing that this incident when there was a failure to flag a couple of properties within the Starkweather district happened a long time ago, and maybe before you were.

Yes, sir.

I mean, yes, ma'am, I'm sorry.

That yes, that happened well before anyone you see uh on staff uh could be the district was created on or was a pass by uh city council on February 26th of 2014.

And so basically within this area there were a few properties that were just not recorded as being in a historic district.

Yes, ma'am.

According to in doing my research when I went into our city system ILMS, um I went address by address to see if there was a historic hold because I was uh uh after speaking with Dr.

Norman.

Um I was really concerned on how it happened, so uh it took a little while, but once I went into ILMS and started looking address by address, that's when I recognized okay, there's no hold on this property, which led which is which was 202 East 31st, which led me down the rabbit hole to check all the rest of them.

Upon doing so, I found that there were two additional properties to the 202 East 31st Street.

So I went in and placed the holds on all three properties that did not have the historic holds.

So when you say hold, that is something that has been applied to all the other houses and all the other 15 14 other historic districts.

Yes, ma'am.

So how uh just for just to explain it to you guys, when a historic district is created or a landmark is approved by you guys or protected landmark is approved by you guys, one of the first actions that we have once approved is to go into our ILMS system and put what we call the 126 site is hold on that, and that site is hold as a historic hole, which remains on the project for the duration of the time of the home or the of the home.

So if someone were to get a plumbing permit, historic hold would pop up, they'd have to call us in order to release the hole.

If they did an electrical permit, they'd have to call us for us to release the hold, and then they could move forward.

Same goes for a alteration addition, um, so forth and so on.

So obviously, because that these because these three properties, but we're speaking about 202 in particular, because there was no hold when they went to get their demolition permit, uh permitting released it because they did not see a uh a historic hold on there.

It would have said uh do not release hold Stark Weather Historic District would have been the note, and then they would have contacted.

Well, they would have contacted the owners first and said, hey, you're in a historic district, you are not allowed to demolish this home, you need to speak with historic preservation office.

And again, because that hole was not there, that did not occur.

So but I thought you said that they didn't have a demolition permit, and that's why you can't issue a CORE.

No, no, they didn't have a demolition COA.

Okay, but they got a demolition permit from the city.

Correct.

Okay.

And I think that should explain the frustration from the residents of Starkweather and independence height.

Because the I mean, I don't know how if I could say this, but the city is partially at fault as well.

Well, Commissioner Escobar.

Yes, um, couple of questions around um ownership.

Is there any commonality between the three properties that don't have holds on them as far as ownership?

There was, I mean I wish I could answer that question, but obviously my biggest concern was the fact that they did not have holds.

So once I placed a hold on it, I mean that I I mean I didn't go in and look and see who was the owner or check HCAD records or anything like that.

I my biggest concern was making sure that the historic hold was placed on it because I didn't know if this person had purchased more properties or what the case may have been.

Right.

Uh another question, and I have like a couple, and they're all connected, but um so there you said that there's it's deferred, they're coming back with a completely new proposed plan.

Is that what I did I hear that actually?

Okay, so um well, yes, and no, but it's not for consideration in in this, but there is some there is an owner who's planning to come and propose a a new construction.

Okay, so in near near term.

Right.

And if you want to see it, the new construction they're proposing is in the report.

Um, however, uh, so they came last month with proposing to put two very long, very two structures that did not fit the district.

Um I spoke with them.

I I let them know, hey, I don't know if this is something that would be allowed.

Just basically gave them the information, and and and I was forthright with them.

Like, hey, I don't know if the commission would approve this because this not it does not fit the district in mainly uh they were referencing non-contributing structures in the district, and I explained to them that they can't they don't they can't do that, they need to reference the contributing structures.

So that's that part.

So they deferred it, right?

So they submitted this application, and upon discussion with uh staff, uh, and we we talked to Commissioner Cosgrove and Commissioner Buchek and then we spoke with uh Matthew obviously with legal, and um the conversation well the conversation quickly changed from a application of a new construction to hey, we haven't approved a demolition, so we need to approve a demolition.

So that's why you see a deferral right now, is because there needs to be a demolition application approved.

Um I have reached out.

Uh I believe Matthew has also reached out with that information because a demolition COA requires an extensive amount of information.

I have given them that information, I have uh emailed that information, but I have not received any response.

So that's where we are now.

Um hopefully um after commission is over and we get going next week or within the next week and a half or so, I will be able to get in contact with them and explain to them what they need to do as far as the demolition COR is concerned, and they will start working on that, and we will have a demolition COR to put in front of you next month.

Thank you.

Um one last comment.

Um for legal, um, just to make sure I heard what you stated as far as the nuance between the options of how one moves forward.

There's there's latitude for us to once this is presented, if it were not to reflect contributing, you know, um other things in the contributing area um in the context area, then you could say that there will be no construction approved for two years and then that there weren't changes for ten after that two years.

I just want to make sure I heard what you said properly for when it comes back so you don't have to repeat it.

Oh, I'm happy to repeat it.

In case in case the applicant is viewing this so that they don't, you know, not address this before they come back.

So the the two year and the 10 year period, that is for that's for demolitions or yeah, demolitions that are conducted without a COA.

Um so as after the period of that two years, the HAC may approve a COA for new construction only if the size and dimensions of the new construction are substantially similar than the demolished structure.

Same thing applies for um so but after 10 years that substantially that size limitation doesn't apply, but it's still the HAC is uh issuing a COA for new construction.

What I understand is happen next or can happen next is that this applicant can come to us and ask for a COR for the demolition.

So the HHC would have to consider um could this structure have been demolished?

Um so they'll go through the all the criteria in the ordinance that supports uh or deny, you know, it's whatever um the criteria is for demolition.

So that would be that that would be what the HHC commit uh considers first.

If they find that yes, this met the conditions for uh demolition, then the question then becomes what did this the COR for any sort of construction or reconstruction look like, whether that extends only to what was demolished, like they can only reconstruct what was demolished, or can they only or can they reconstruct past that?

And that's subjective for us to decide.

Is that I'm asking if that's what you're saying.

Um I'm trying to clarify so that when it comes back, is it subjective or you know, is it documented?

Yeah, I mean it's so the COR process um I think is more meant for these smaller things of like or I don't know this for sure, but my understanding and interpretation of the code is that you the HAC would issue a COR for um work that someone did that wasn't up to SNUF or wasn't up to what um their HOH HAC had previously said an applicant could do.

Whether that extends to a demo demolition, because uh that that's unsure, because I'm unsure about because it would be sort of from a policy perspective, sort of strange for me in my mind to not have some sort of mechanism by which the commission could build back what was unlawfully demolished.

Um and so I do that that's how I'm sort of interpreting the COR process of like, okay, you can build back, you can reconstruct um what was demolished, but that's where it stops.

So that's the question.

Where does it stop?

But if I may, if I and I think we'll there are more questions, so this has never happened before.

Um and we've been on the commission for a long time, at least uh my my vice chair.

Um, the property was designated historic and shown on the map as historic, so it wasn't like a not known.

It was not a secret.

You mean you could go to the Starkweather preservation manual, um, the the website that HOP has, and you could see 202 East 31st half street is uh a contributing structure.

So that is kind of a question of did the owners do their or whoever demolished, did they do the due diligence?

Right.

Maybe, maybe not.

Right.

But legally, it was it was a contributing historic structure.

Right.

It was duly um noted in those ways.

And it seems to me that the commission, as you said, if someone at any time brought before an application for demolition, it is within the jurisdiction of this body to determine whether they meet the the requirements to allow for a demolition.

If we're allowed to determine that a project can be demolished, it seems to me we can also determine that it doesn't meet that requirement and therefore that we might not approve of such demolition even if it's already taken place.

We would that is within our the purview of this commission.

That's correct.

And if that is the case, whether or not they received a permit as a technicality because of a hole that wasn't in place, then we're back to the clause of what is a demolition, then it's still a demolition if let this when I'm talking hypothetical at this point.

Because no vote has we haven't seen the information.

We haven't we're waiting for information and no determination's been made.

But if we were to to not allow for the demolition, then it appears to us that we're looking at a demolition, whether or not it was a uh it occurred because of a technicality, and then we're bound by the rules of what a demolition is, because that is defined in in our ordinance.

That's my question.

Is your your question is, if it is determined that it is not a sanctioned demolition, like that if if the commission doesn't I I think you're saying that the commission if when the when the C when the applicant brings a COR for the demolition and the Commission finds no the criteria was not met for a demolition, then I think that's where it stops.

They they cannot build anything, or they can't even come to the commission for a COA.

Maybe they could, but the Commission can't issue, and so it'd be wasted their time.

Um there are like civil remedies that's kind of outside of the what the commission does, but that's something that uh we'd have to discuss with the planning department.

Um but if the commission finds no the criteria for demolition was not met or didn't exist, um then there's no sort of I don't I don't think that there's a uh wait, let me see here.

Yeah, the question is can they build back to match what was there or can there be no construction for a period of time because it was a demolition?

That I think that's it.

The yeah, so that's part so the the code has two parts in that COR process.

So you can the Commission can either issue a COA, um, which means it meant it found that the criteria was met, or they can if the criteria wasn't met, they can issue a COR, um and and as a condition for that issuing that C O R they can say you need to repair, reconstruct or restore the unlawful demolition.

So what that re- restore or that repair, reconstruct, restore, um the extent of that is not clear in the code.

So um that you know, I don't think the commission is bound to issue that COR even if the criteria isn't um isn't met, but uh the level of which you know an applicant can present plans and say I want to build this thing that doesn't resemble what I demolished.

Um that's unclear.

But but if it's a demolition, my question was simply this the can they bill back anything if it's a demolition?

Uh this is all hypothetical hypothetical at this point, but if we reach that point, or are they based on that language?

Could they get uh approval to bill back to match what it was that was to tort torn down, but no no larger and to actually replicate that, largely, you know, replicate that yes portion.

Yes, the commission could issue a COR for them to reconstruct.

Um but I think it'd be I'm guessing it would be limited to what was demolished.

So you have kind of two paths, you're taking the the left.

I'm just asking for what are the two options that you have.

One option is you find that the there was the criteria met um for demolition and you continue moving.

The other option is you didn't meet the criteria, now you can only as a condition of issuing the COR, you have to rebuild what the only thing you can build is that you rebuild what was demolished.

Um, but is there a provision not to build anything back for a certain period of time as well?

Yeah, that's where it runs into that two-year period.

I mean, like I mentioned earlier, this policy of like this policy reason of we want to be able to replace what has been lost, um, that's what this the second option, I guess, kind of gets at.

Um but it does kind of co conflict with that two-year rule of, you know, if if a demolition is done without a COA, nothing, no permits can be issued for two years.

But this I think is sort of an exception to that rule, um, but it requires the commission to consider all these things.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Cosgrove has a question followed by Commissioner Broadback.

Um I mean, I see it as there are three options.

I mean, one is we take no action and allow the illegal demolition portion of the ordinance to take effect, which would prohibit them from doing anything for two years, or we accept that they were able to demolish it, or we grant them a COR to rebuild what was there.

I just want to make sure that's I would concur with that.

And then just for context, the property was listed for sale in MLS prior to the demolition, it was identified as being in a historic district, the tax records identify it as being in a historic district, so yes, there was oversight on the city's part, but the property was well represented in the public face as being in a historic district.

Uh I have a question for Dr.

Norman.

I'll open reopen the public hearing.

And while you're approaching, I'd like to say to both of the speakers, very powerful testimony.

I'm gonna remember you two.

I feel your frustration.

Yes, sir.

Um so Dr.

Norman, this commission has recently learned that the sets of facts around a questionable or even an illegal demolition can depend on who you're asking.

So what I'd like to ask you is what's your understanding of how this was allowed to happen, just in case you're not able to make it to uh the hearing when we do get an application.

So what happened was I was on the original committee for the Starkweather district.

Um that's true.

I worked very hard with Tanya and Mr.

David Williams to make sure that we we had to get a certain amount of individuals to sign up first of all to say, okay, I I don't mind my house being a historical house.

And so that's what happened.

And the majority of the and those are not here are older individuals during that time.

And so what we were told in this meeting, I never will forget this meeting, because I was like T Tal on whether or not I wanted to be a historical house, that we could not um change anything on that house without a permit.

And the house, even if it was sold, it would have to stay in its original state.

And though no house could be demolished unless it went back through the historical committee.

So we're good.

So it was enforced because when I moved back from the suburbs in Tombaugh and wanted to change out my ports that's there, I went straight to permit and permit sent me to him with his office, and they told me absolutely not.

So then we're good.

That's what I'm thinking.

We're good, we're following the law.

And so then all of a sudden I see this people coming in fourth street, these developers coming in, and they're just sitting there, and I'm like, okay, they're gonna get it.

They're gonna get it, right?

But it didn't happen like that.

So what happened was it sat there about a week with with the big tractor, whatever.

And so I just came home one day and everything was gone.

And that's when I called Mr.

Terrence and I said, Hey, what's going on?

It wasn't in that kind of language, but you know, what's going on?

And he basically told me what had happened, and I said no.

I said, and I was very adamant.

I was on that committee.

202 is Mr.

Rowe's house.

I grew up there.

And so then he went back and he told me what had happened.

And so I'm I'm very upset.

I don't want to cry because we worked hard for that.

I am the third generation from a plantation.

I can turn you real butter.

And so I am very upset.

Everybody on that street worked extremely hard.

And those who are there now, we're just passing it on.

The houses are still staying with the younger people.

And so that's why I am with it now, because I don't understand how that happened.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um I said on that committee.

So it was with within their office, because I went to get a I was gonna test it.

I couldn't get a porch.

They sent me all the way back to him, and it was a long meeting.

He wasn't there, and I didn't get it.

Commissioner, I may have another question, uh, Commissioner Escobar.

Um, yes, and please let me know if I'm not technically allowed to ask this question, but I feel like the whole purpose of public comment is to to get insight on the intention of the surrounding community for things that don't fit into what we have in front of us that are subjective, um, and I would love to hear um an answer from uh Miss Tanya, and I apologize I didn't remember your last name either because I keep having Tonya to boast in my brain, because that was my friend.

Um it comes to the ability for us to make a subjective decision because there is three options, two options, one option on what could happen technically because this hasn't happened this same way before, there's the option of not doing anything to not reward someone who seemingly uh advertised a historic home, decided that they would demolish it, and maybe made a bet that even if they had to rebuild it back, they would be able to charge for a new home and get the benefit of constructing a new home and having torn down a historic home, since it it was not, you know, it was in a gray area.

So we have the latitude, possibly, to say we're not gonna reward you and allow you to build something, make a profit, get in there and get something going in under two years, or we can defer for two years, um, and and so that's that's one option.

Um, there's the you just can't build anything here, period option.

Um, I'm curious of the options you've heard.

Is it better to replace the home and having something there that is resonant with the historic context of what was there?

Um, community-based, like from your heart, not necessarily what's policy or what's legal, but what's community preference?

I would love to hear that from yourself, and in very brief because I know we're already quite over time and everyone's ready to kind of move on, but I think it's important to know what your instinctual answer would be to what seems just.

We would rather that it it just remained um with no building there because right now we take very much pride in our neighborhood, and we're we're we're fighting that they're building, and just like they're waiting, they're not cutting the grass.

So then I'm paying the guy $35.

Can you go over here and cut this grass so that our street can look good?

Right.

And so, yes, because if you if you I would invite y'all to come down the street, two cars can't pass down the street at the same time.

One can't go east and one can't go the west.

It's that tight knit.

So we would we would prefer, we can do a community garden or something.

But we would just prefer that no one move there.

And and thank you.

Um and is that thumbs up or just to minimize time and comment, but do you second that notion, Miss Tanya?

IHRC will do whatever it is that the meeting he wants.

We advocate for the community.

Sorry, formally it needs to be.

Yeah, you're right.

I we have have to have it on record my apologies for even asking not to.

For the record, the question is for Tanya Wells.

And if you could restate your name again for the recording for people that may be watching.

My name is Tanya Wells again, executive director for the Independence Heights Redevelopment Council.

We advocate for the community and what the community wants.

So if those residents are saying they want a home rebuilt that was illegally torn down, then that's what we advocate for.

If they're saying that they want a community garden, if whatever it is that the community wants, then that's what we stand by.

But even greater than this, what I want you all to take away from this is this is happening all over independence heights, and this is why we're furious.

Because as the first black town in Texas, we are not getting the recognition that we deserve.

And my predecessor, Tanya Jabo stood here before everyone all the time.

She is no longer here because she fought more for the community than she did take care of her health.

And so we need the planning department to work with us and not against us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Okay, so I'm gonna um I think Commissioner Davis had a question.

Okay.

I'm gonna close the public hearing.

So my question is you you're recommending deferral though for the project.

So I need to vote on the deferral.

Motion to approve uh staff recommendation.

Okay.

Second Escobar.

Okay, all in favor?

I any opposed.

Okay, so we'll move on.

Um, and when there is more information for this body to review, it will then exercise its right to review that information until then there's more to more to come our way, but until it does, there's no more action that we can take.

Okay, so we'll move on.

So we're on B 13.

I'd like you to present 13 and 14 together to save time.

You mean you don't want to stay here long?

I think we'll be here long, nonetheless.

Um, I mean, if you insist, I I thought we were having a good time here.

Um I would just state for the record that Commissioner Seidel has had to leave the meeting and so and also Commissioner Carl Smith.

Uh I can officially say good evening, Chair and members of the HHC.

This is death member Terrence Jackson, and today I submit to you item B 13, 4601 Oak Ridge Street.

The property includes a historic 1,832 square foot pediment bungalow, one story wood single, something's wrong.

Hold on, I'm sorry.

I guess that's right.

Um wood single family residence and detached garage situated on a 5,000 square foot corner lot located in the North Hill Historic District.

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing garage, demolish and repair the existing garage foundation as needed, construct the garage with wood siding and to match the existing uh home and construct a new two-car garage and construct the breezeway from the garage to the home for the garage.

The app the step I'm sorry, support the garage staff is recommending approval.

And the applicant is proposing an alteration addition to construct an interior remodel of the existing home, reinforce the foundation to accommodate for the second floor addition, construct the 532 uh square foot addition, uh sixty-five square foot on the first floor and four hundred and sixty-seven on the second floor.

They will construct the addition with a four over 12 roof pitch with composition roof shingles.

The eve height of the addition will be seventeen feet with a maximum ridge height of 17 feet one and a half inches.

They will demolish the existing garages previously mentioned, uh construct the addition to the home with wood siding to match existing, and install two new windows to be vinyl windows to match existing.

Uh for the uh addition, staff recommends approval with conditions that the existing front porch remain as is, and the proposed removal of the window towards the front of both uh sides of the elevations shall remain in place.

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

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I'll open the public hearing at this time.

I do not have anyone sign up to speak.

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

Not hearing anyone, I will close the public hearing.

Is there a question for staff?

I know this was this audit was pulled.

Yes, I found this COA to be very, very confusing.

Um it's almost like it's not ready for prime time.

Um it uh there's no roof plan, there's no window plan, no door plan, all the things we normally see.

I'm not sure how you figured out the what the eve height was because I can't see that that's on here.

So I'm just wondering is this plan ready?

That's my question.

Uh by ready.

I mean, can we are we ready to approve something that seems to be missing key elements?

Okay, so uh if you go to page nine, um on the rear elevation proposed, uh you'll see that the eave height is called out.

Um you'll see that the uh top of the ridge is called out.

Um, yes, indeed, we do not have a window schedule.

Um, this house has vinyl windows.

There are no original windows in this home.

Um, all the windows are vinyl.

They are proposing to match the existing windows with vinyl.

Um I believe you pointed something else out.

Uh oh, I'm sorry, the door schedule.

Um, right, there is no door schedule.

Um, sorry, I gotta go to the second application.

There is no door schedule, but the only door being proposed is the door to the breezeway, um, which is towards the rear of the home.

Um, secondary door.

Um, it's could you restate your recommendation for the record?

Uh, approval we could for the garages and approval, uh, and for the um for the addition alteration, the um recommendation is approval with conditions that the existing front porch remain as is, and the proposed removal of the windows towards the front of both sides of both side elevations shall remain in place, okay.

Are there any other questions of uh staff?

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

Would it make sense to vote on both of them at the same time?

Because they're connected.

I would prefer that we vote the same time, yes.

Um, the save time.

Commissioner Davis, um, would you consider it to be friendly if I were to make a motion to defer?

I think your points are fair.

I'd like to see that additional information so we are fully informed before we vote, but not if you're not in support of it.

Well, okay, so my crowd.

I'm sorry, so uh Terrence found some things that I couldn't find.

And so I I accept that, although we really have to be able to blow these things up so we can see what we're looking at.

Um and since there are only two new windows and they're vinyl, um to match the others.

Um I don't know.

Um, but I would like to see, and maybe this is a subject for our workshop to say what has to be in the COA in order for us to approve it.

So I'm fine with this as it is, um, based upon Terrence's information.

Uh but with the caveat.

You really need to standardize.

Uh, question for Terrence.

Um Terrence, the windows um that they show as existing don't seem to match the photographs.

Uh and you have a the on the inventory photo, and then you go to the current photo, and I'm assuming those those kind of look final windows you're talking about.

Yes, sir.

So those kind of have the eight-inch or the six to eight inch um separation between them, but you go to the um 2D drawings that they have that they're showing existing windows, but they look like they're it's one one window.

It's hard, it's kind of hard to tell with these drawings.

I'm not sure what they're proposing, but uh I'm kind of um in agreement with Commissioner Brosbeck.

I I think we need to defer this so that they can um provide a little more information on on the windows that they're going to provide that they want to provide, um, as well as the door schedules and so forth.

I think the scales and everything look okay, it's just the windows um don't seem like they're they're in context with anything on this block.

Yeah, so uh just to answer your question.

Um I mean, occasionally occasionally we get uh applicants who have uh um chosen architects who have never done work in a historic district.

Um and I mean as you very well may know um uh most times uh well you may or may not know, but uh most times when that's the case, they typically hire a drafter that um you know does isn't necessarily refined or experienced as far as what a historic or what the historic district is, and they're just cranking out drawings, a number of drawings, and and um I think that's the case here.

Um staff, however, uh didn't feel that they should be penalized for that because they're not removing any of the uh existing windows on the front facade, the ones that you're saying that um don't look correct.

Um those windows are going to remain.

Um they did propose to remove some windows towards the front on the side elevation, um, which is why you see them highlighted in yellow.

Um, and that's why we're we're suggesting that those windows remain the only windows that are being put in are the two windows that are gonna I believe it's two or three windows that are gonna be on the addition.

Um so those are the only windows that they are proposing um that'll be new.

Um because they're vinyl windows, um I mean I know that they're jailed when because I received the email about that, uh, but they did not provide a window schedule.

I did you know ask for a window schedule and a door schedule, but uh uh they sent me an email uh I believe it was yesterday evening um saying that the only door that they were adding was the door at the breezeway, which has I mean at the rear of the home.

Um and then the only windows they were adding were the two windows in the addition.

Uh so I mean uh I I understand uh where you're coming from and and I'll relay the message if that is a decision, but um from staff's point of view, um, you know, we can we a lot of times we make requests, does it happen?

Sometimes it doesn't, especially with someone who doesn't have experience working with the historic district.

They may not understand the severity of it, but um that's where we are.

Uh uh noted on that.

I think I think um, and I'm not you know, I don't expect every homeowner to hire a professional um to do their drawings for them.

But the the drawings, my point was the drawings don't reflect what's what's there, um, and it's only two windows understand.

Is there is there a mechanism that staff has to make sure that the windows match what's what's actually installed?

Yeah, so I mean I wouldn't necessarily call it a mechanism, but um staff has a policy that um, and this is a bit of an anomaly because um all these windows are non-original.

Um so staff policy is in additions uh you need you should use uh wood or wood clad windows that are in set and recess.

Um asking that someone to do that in a house like this, that's kind of you know that's and it and the fact that this is a corner lot and those windows will be seen on the corner lot, and it's only two windows step kind of failed.

You know what?

Two vinyl windows, it's not over keel, it's not a big issue.

Um so we didn't apply that policy to this project, but that is the mechanism if you will that staff typically uses because we uh would like to see wood or wood clad windows that are in set and recess.

It would look kind of silly on this house.

So is it?

Sorry, Commissioner Davis followed by Commissioner Blakely.

So just to clarify, okay, I understand that you're saying that you that people may hire somebody that doesn't have the experience, but these plans can't be permitted, can they in their current can they these plans be permitted in their current?

Okay, can I okay?

So I'll just say this that um the what we're requesting from folks are aren't permit documents.

Um a different set of documents would be created for permits.

Now sometimes people submit their permit documents to us, and that's when you get those uh where Terrence clips off the notes and things like that, like those arrows probably was from a permit package.

But what we're requiring is really a drawing that is to meant to be to scale and adequately represent the existing structure and the proposed structure so that we can make the determination, but but we're not requiring permit drawings for our review, but we do we do want them to be proportional so we can make sure they are accurate at to your point.

Does anybody go back and check when they submit their permits to make sure that is done okay?

Again, we've talked a little bit about the hold that exists within the permit system.

And so if anyone makes an application and there's drawings, the staff gets contacted by the permit office.

They look at the drawings on their screen, they look at the C of A and they compare the two and make sure that they look like they're the same instructions.

They read through the language or the ordinance, and if they're satisfied, they release the hold.

That's the purpose of the whole, the hold is there so that unless someone on staff releases it, it remains until it's they check that.

Now they could build something differently, that's when we get a C of R.

But but that's what happens whenever you try to pull a permit and you can't because there's still a hold, and if and if you're pulling a permit and staff's at the lunch or they're having a party that day, you don't get a permit.

You you have to wait, and you s re you resubmit.

But that that's that that's how the system is supposed to work, and that's how it my experience it does work.

But I'll renew motion to defer.

I have a question.

Okay, Commissioner Blakely.

Uh on the call for a second.

Eight.

It looks like something like is a porch being added to the building?

Yes, that's why there's a uh condition that that the uh that the existing remain and that the porch not be a part because there's nothing in the context area for it for a um I believe this is a pediment bungalow, but there's no uh nothing in the context area of a pediment bungalow having such a uh porch.

Because they don't show it in plan, if I'm reading these plans correctly.

So you're basically saying they can't build the porch.

That's correct.

So I have a motion to defer.

Is there a second to defer?

Did we provide a sort of list of what it is we want to see uh when they come back?

I just would not want to see drawings that still have ambiguities come back a second time for their sake and for ours.

In the interest of time, it it that would all be in the transcript from tonight's meeting.

That is correct.

Yeah, I think staff can convey if if there's a second and if there's a successful vote, but I need a second, I'll second.

All in favor of the vote to defer.

Aye.

And all opposed.

Opposed.

Yes.

So is there three opposed or four?

Opposed.

So that's four opposed.

And how many were four?

The the motion one, two, three, four, five.

Okay, so it's deferred.

Okay, moving on.

Okay, make more.

Chair members of the HHC, I submit to you item B 15, 1131 Dunbar.

The property includes the historic 885 square foot one story wood frame bungalow bungalow single family residence built circa 1930, and it's a and detached garage situated on a 5,000 square foot interior lot located in the Nor Hill Historic District.

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing non-original addition at the rear of the structure, remodel the interior restroom in the existing garage, remove the existing siding on the garage and replace with cementitious siding.

Remove and replace existing garage door with a more modern garage door, construct a 1,391 square foot two-story rear edition with 794 square feet on the first floor and 597 square feet on the second floor.

They propose to remove the existing asbesto siding on the contributing structure structure to expose the 117 siding underneath.

The 117 siding is to be repaired and replaced as needed.

They will construct the addition with composition shingles and a six over twelve roof pitch to match the existing, the maximum ridge height will be twenty four feet six inches, and they will construct.

The addition will be constructed with wood or wood clad windows to be inset and recessed and the existing windows are to remain and to be repaired if necessary.

Um staff recommends approval, chair members of H H CM available for questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you all up in the public hearing.

Is there anyone in the audience to speak about this item?

No, I'll close the public hearing.

Just a quick question.

What is the rear setback on the house?

On the house?

Right.

What is the setback?

How much?

I can't I can't read it.

Oh, sorry, this is existing.

Looks like I don't know what that one is.

Uh not the garage.

The garage because the garage is grandfathered because it they're not moving it, I don't think.

But so for just for that for the house.

And I'm just sensitive to since nobody from Norwell Norville is here to object, and since the guidelines are 19 feet, and this doesn't look like 19 feet, but I can't read it.

So if you could just clarify that.

I mean, I see a dimension of 19 feet, but it doesn't have a dimension string that it goes to.

Um I can tell you that.

Oh, I'm sorry, nineteen feet is the size setback.

It is.

It's over 19 feet.

Um I don't have an exact dimension on a CF that's four.

It's twenty feet.

Are you looking at page eight?

I'm looking at page.

Oh gosh, come on.

Page five of 16.

Should I be looking at page eight?

Sorry, I'm on the wrong.

Yeah, something doesn't seem proportional.

Sorry, I'm on the wrong report.

There is no setback dimension, but I would also like to state that um staff cannot enforce the Norheel design guidelines because they are draft and they are not they have not been implemented.

Can we see the side elevation of the proposed design?

One more time.

Oh, you got it.

I need that version of you as I mean.

Rear setback is eight feet eight and a half inches.

And you said you would like to.

Oh, you said side elevation, is that how tall is this?

I see it now.

And how tall is that structure?

Uh the ridge type is not the ridge, but the e pipe.

E' sorry, I didn't put the e-pide in my district.

Bottom of the Eve.

Uh is gonna be 17-2.

Oh, I got it.

Well, I could blow it out one up.

I don't want to mess up your new laptop.

Yes, so the bottom of the Eve is at 17-2.

Other additional questions for the project.

Um, only thing I can say is it there's often you know a five-foot ground easement, there's a 10-foot aerial easement above 20 feet.

It's pretty close to within that utility mandated area.

So I don't know um, but you know, that's not a setback that we um that we enforce.

So, but motion to approve staff recommendation.

Okay, is there a second?

All second.

All in favor.

Uh.

Any opposed?

Okay, moving on.

Thank you.

And now we're at item 17, 1012 Key Street.

Good evening, Chairperson and members of the commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha DeLeone.

I submit item B 17 at 1012 Key Street in the Norhill Historic District for your consideration.

The eight hundred and seventy-three square foot uh contributing one-story bungalow style single-family resident residence was built in 1930, situated on a 5,000 square foot lot.

The applicant proposes adding a 320 square foot two-story rear addition to the existing one story structure.

The project received approval from the neighborhood uh from the Norhill Neighborhood Association.

Staff recommends approval.

Chair and members of this commission, the owner Brian Davis is here to answer any questions.

I'm also here to answer any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I'll open the public hearing at this time.

Uh no one signed up to speak on this item, but if you um, as the applicant or owner would like to address the commission you you are invited.

He would just like to answer any questions that you anybody understood.

Is there anyone else in the room left that would speak on this item not seeing anyone if you don't want to speak you don't have to um okay I'll close the public hearing for now any questions of this uh application of staff.

Okay.

I understand you're saying that these clear story windows can be wood and they can be in set and recessed but I think on the front here you're really straining the compatibility in Norhill it just doesn't seem compatible to me from Norhill.

Nor Hill approved Norhill approval.

Correct it's in the very last page of my presentation.

So I mean yes yes but they wouldn't that be the wouldn't that be who we would want to make sure feels like it's compatible is the Norhill themselves given the history of kind of our continuing conversations with them.

Yes I did not see that um on the um on the report and you know that's it works for me.

Okay.

But the commission members do have the the purview to you know we we're not I mean we we're just because uh a neighborhood association says they approve or they don't approve we're still uh we we can still make our own consensus whatever whether it's an agreement or not an agreement so it's that that just to mention that but so I think um to that point um and I know we're not supposed to be designing a pair but it's just really glaring to me and does not feel compatible and so that's how I feel about it.

Okay.

Any uh Commissioner Blakely is there someone who can explain the rationale for the Clara Story windows who's here so the owner is here.

Um they did base it off of a of as you can see on your screen right now from a previous edition that was approved in 2003 but for the reasoning uh Mr Brian Davis can go ahead and provide that so I'll open I'll reopen the public hearing and Mr Davis if you could re restate your full name for the record in the microphone yes my name is Brian Davis I'd like to thank the commission for your time when it came to designing the house um so I'm a longtime resident of the heights I've been there for 27 years.

I love this house I love my street my neighborhood and I like what Norhill is I'm not trying to change that.

We are trying to keep the house and the yard uh to the same similar dimensions to what we've had over the past 26 years we love the backyard the space and for us to build a house that's big enough for our needs today would have required going deeper to the yard we're just trying to do a small addition upstairs so we can have the space to go inside the house keep the backyard and the two car garage.

When it came to the clear story windows the design of the house uh for us to have the bedroom on the back to enjoy the backyard put the uh the bathroom and the closet towards the front of the house we met with uh with Virginia from Norhill Heights she came to the house to try to convince us to put in double hung windows in both those spaces especially on the front of the house and as we looked at moving the rooms around and how we were to get light into the bathroom into the closet double hung windows just didn't work on the small space that we have to work with.

She suggested putting double hung windows in the shower that wasn't going to work.

And so short of not having light on the front of the house and maybe putting just the clear store on the side um she went back to Norhill Commission and they decided that just because of the size of this house that was the best option.

I drove up and down every single street in Norhill and counted the houses that do have Clarestory windows predominantly on the sides and on the back.

We did find the house that we used as an example that had them on the front.

But we felt in this example that um it is the best use of space for the second story for us.

Um I know every single one of my neighbors on the street.

They've all seen our plans for it.

Everybody seems to like what we have, and so I I understand that it's a bit um out of stretch for what we see in Norhill.

But I believe in this example it is appropriate for the house.

Thank you.

Certainly, thank you.

Okay, I'll close the public hearing.

Is there a motion?

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

Accept staff's recommendation.

Okay, is there a second?

So I see a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Davis opposes, okay.

That but that motion passes.

We'll move on.

I believe we're now at number tw.

Um are we at 20?

Are we 21?

Was 1515 Rutland?

Okay.

That's deferred.

Okay.

I didn't have I didn't have this one.

This one.

It was deferred by the applicant.

Okay.

Deferred by the applicant, I don't think.

Good after uh good evening, Chairperson and members of the commission.

This is Staff Person Samantha DeLeon.

I submit item B 21 at 1515 Rutland Street in Houston Heights West Historic District for your consideration.

Uh the 1910 contributing Queen Anne single story family residence and non-contributing garage uh was or the main house was built in 1930, situated on a eight uh uh built in 1910, situated on an 8,800 square foot lot.

The applicant is proposing to construct a 43.15 square foot detached ADU in front of the existing non-contributing rear garage to be an office.

The proposed ADU meets measurable standards.

However, because of the provision to the right located on page one-11 of the heights design guidelines, since the existing garage is larger than 900 square feet, it cannot be administratively approved and must be approved by commission.

Uh staff recommends approval.

Chair and members of the commission.

Uh the owner is not here to answer any questions, but I am here to answer any questions.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

I will open the public hearing.

One member of the public leaving.

Um with that, I will close the public hearing.

And um are there any questions of of staff from commission members?

I just want to correct a couple of things.

This is not a 1,290 square foot single uh two-story single family residence.

This is a 2,007 and 70 square foot residence, and the garage is a 640 square foot garage.

I'm not sure where you're getting 900 square feet.

Do you have any documentation for that?

So looking at the site plan uh staff determined that we counted the first and the second floor, so it's over 900 square feet.

So the issue is so just in the heights design guidelines, it just states that only one it one accessory structure can be built on there, and that another one would basically go ahead and change the um declassification from single family residential to multifamily.

So that was why we could not uh have this administratively approved.

Okay, so I totally didn't understand that you did the sum of the first and second floor for this guideline.

Um but the other questions that I would have would be is the um is the structure, are the doors on the front, are they offset or are they in the are they submet is it is it symmetrical because you've shown you're showing it two different ways.

So the photo that you're seeing on page 11 is the front, and then the back is on page 13, which shows it slightly off center.

So that's the rear.

Okay, okay, gotcha.

So two sets of doors.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, I get it.

I understand it.

Okay.

Are there any other questions of staff?

If not, is if there's a motion.

I'll move to accept staff's recommendation.

Is there a second?

Escobar seconds, all in favor.

Aye, any opposed, motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay, good evening.

This is staff person Charles Sadler.

I submit for your consideration item B 24.

Excuse me, I got a little allergies, which is 1127 Le Green Street and Norhill Historic District.

This is a non-contributing one-story single-family residence circa 1927.

The applicant is proposing a new roof of the same composition shingle.

The main changes are on the front facade, the front, which is the south elevation.

The proposing removal of glass block, reconfiguring to a more appropriate bungalow style.

So the black glass block will go away.

Addition of a front porch with steps and railings.

You can see the sandborne on pages four through ten.

Actually, Sandboard and BLA, which gives evidence of a front porch.

I'm sorry, sides and the rear.

The proposing addition of new windows with trim, and then the addition of trim to some of the existing windows.

Staff recommends approval.

Excuse me.

Chair and members of the commission.

I don't have any speakers signed up.

There were no public comments or civic association comments.

Um available for any questions.

Thank you.

I'll I will open and close the public hearing because we have no members of the public remaining.

Are there any questions of staff for this item?

Um I pulled it because the last time I looked at this, it didn't have all this information, so I just wanted a minute to review.

Are there any other questions about the information?

I don't have any questions.

Okay.

Is there a motion?

Garcia, a motion to approve status recommendation.

Oh second.

Second, Cosgrove.

Uh, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay, so we'll now proceed with item C.

She's saying no action needed because she's present.

Did you want to explain?

So if you miss two absence in a row, we have to excuse an absence, but because she is present, no action is needed.

And so we can move on to item item D.

Okay.

Um, so we'll move on to comments from the public, which I'll open and close as there are no members of the public left.

And um, that's a first.

So I will duly note this day.

Uh with that we'll move on to item E, the historic preservation officers report.

It'll be short.

Good evening, uh Chair Buch, uh Commission members and members of the public.

Um my name is Yasmine Arslan, and I'm serving as the interim preservation officer.

I'm here to present the preservation Officer's report for May, highlighting key updates and ongoing efforts to preserve Houston's historic character.

We extend our sincere thanks to all applicants and community members who took the time to respond to the Historic preservation tracker Survey.

Your feedback provides valuable public input and will help guide ongoing improvements uh to our processes and customer service.

Staff member Terrence Jackson attended a documentary screening last Sunday featuring the Lewis White Grocery as City of Houston Protected Landmark located in the fifth ward and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

This event provided a meaningful opportunity to engage with the community and celebrate one of Houston's historically significant neighborhood institutions.

Finally, I want to acknowledge and thank the entire historic preservation team for their continued dedication despite a consistently heavy workload and a smaller team.

Staff remain committed to serving applicants efficiently and with care.

Your hard work ensures we continue to support the preservation of Houston's diverse historic resources.

Chairbuchek, Commissioners, and Member of the Public, thank you for your time.

I look forward to continuing our shared work in preserving Houston's historic places.

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

This concludes my preservation officers' report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, we are adjourned.

Thank you all.