I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Honored the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and
indivisible.
We're going to just move on for a day since we do not have anyone here to hear from in
public, no public comments.
We are going to move on to item three on our agendas to consider the approval of the May
12 minutes, and I want to give everyone time to make sure you get to look at those and
see if there's any questions.
Any second?
I have a question.
In the minutes, it didn't state, and I don't know if it needs to, but I know that we voted,
we had to vote on subcommittees, and it was not in here, the vote was not in here, it
did not show that we voted for that, unless I missed it.
Anyone else miss that?
It shows here the only thing that we voted on were minutes, and it doesn't show any other
votes.
And it seemed like there was something else that we voted on, but I know we did on the
subcommittee.
We had to do that.
Yeah, I did ask for a doll to be like Hootie, yeah, so that would be, yeah, so yeah, that
would need to be added.
That would need to be added.
It's saying that Commissioner Gregory and Commissioner Treat have been added as part
of the subcommittee, so that will be up to you.
And it was a unanimous vote for that, but we did vote for that, so.
Go ahead.
Okay.
So we'll add that.
So do you all want to amend the motion with best corrections?
Oh, amend the motion with best corrections.
Okay.
Do I need to write it down?
No.
Okay.
Perfect.
All right.
All in favor with the amendment to the corrections?
Raise your hand.
Any opposed?
Okay.
Unanimous.
Thank you, guys.
All right.
The next one is item 3B, number HLC 25-10001, to hold a public meeting and determine whether
the presented expense resulted in a permanent improvement and/or restoration of the local
historic landmark property located at 314 Marietta Street.
The site is located on the east side of Marietta Street between West Oak Street and Houston
Plates.
314 Marietta Street historic tax exemption presented by Camp Rock.
Okay.
Thank you, Chair.
As stated, the property is 314 Marietta.
The owners are Sarah and Travis Roosby.
The original construction date of that property is 1940.
The owner of the property is Marietta.
The property is 314 Marietta.
Looking at the request continued.
Trash haul fees, the enhanced home design package, their roofing and their framing labor,
and their fireplace inserts and labor do not meet those qualifying improvements in their
restoration projects as they do not pertain to the general improvement or restoration
of the historic property.
So those total amounts of $61,173.33, meaning that the total amount that qualifies for the
tax exemption is $271.998.25.
This is a before and after restoration and improvements were raised to the property.
This is what the property looked like before.
Then they did some restoration and improvements.
So this is the restoration portion with the improvements highlighted in yellow.
So staff's analysis does look at section 10-128C, which does allow for qualifying expenses
that are limited up to two years prior to designation as a historic site.
So I just didn't want to call that out.
But staff is recommending a favorable determination that the expenses presented, with the exception
of those trash haul fees, enhanced home design package, roofing and framing labor, and fireplace
inserts and labor results in impermanent permit and/or restoration.
Any questions?
I remember this one, yeah.
I remember it.
I have questions.
So is there a breakdown on what was spent -- let me just say not what was spent, but
did it qualify -- on what was spent on the original structure?
Because to me, the tax exemption -- and I think this is what City Council has been looking
at on instead of just giving a tax exemption, because everything they added is new.
It has no historic value whatsoever.
But the actual historic structure, to me, would qualify for restoration.
And so I wonder if -- because I didn't see in anything, and I did not have time, I just
glanced through the backup materials, that there was not a distinction.
It was just a lump sum.
That's what I struggle with because of that purpose.
Understood.
Staff did request that information.
However, all payments were made in lump sum to the contractor, and it was not done by
square footage.
So they were not able to provide that information.
But they did want to stress that they did obviously spend more than a minimum of $10,000
on the restoration itself.
But --
In green, I see that you say obviously.
We have to set a precedent on what we do for this and future ones.
And the documentation, to me, we need to know what was done on that structure, what was
spent on it, to be able to justify.
I think they probably did as well, but I don't have anything telling me that because what
I was looking at was certain packages that they purchased and those types of things.
So anyway, that's my struggle with it.
I don't doubt they could probably qualify, but do we have it?
Does that make sense?
It makes sense.
I did request information, but they don't have it available.
So theoretically or historically, have these kinds of things come to the commission before?
That's not just restoration, but addition.
To me, this is a whole other house, and it's beautiful.
They did a great job.
And it fits.
And it was approved.
It's a different thing to me coming back for a tax exemption on a new structure, because
if we talk about the property, the land, we don't really do that.
We're talking about structures is what we are on.
So again, to me, it seems like they would have been able -- the windows were this amount,
and we had so many new windows, and the new door was this amount.
Those types of things.
I can't see that it would have been that much of a struggle to come up with the $10,000
and what they spent on that structure on just that portion.
But then I think the question is, were they supposed to?
Or is it their understanding that anything that's approved will qualify?
Because I'm still catching up.
>> Yeah, but that's what city -- that's what council was struggling with.
>> Yeah.
And to catch you up on this one, this one is a bit of a new thing, right?
So the idea is they have this smaller structure, and they want to build this additional bigger
structure, and bigger it.
And I guess that was kind of the trade-off deal that we were looking to make, is like,
okay, well, restore that place, and they qualify, right?
I do understand stripling the comments, though, because, yeah, I mean, I do think you should
be able to more closely account for what's actually going into the older structure, but
at the same time, I'll just confess myself, I feel like that's kind of a pot sweetener
tube to incentivize this type of activity, and that was something that came up whenever
we were discussing it, because if they look at it as saying, oh, it's going to cost me
more to update that thing than it would cost me to get the better whatever I want right,
then they wouldn't do it.
They would just level it and build what they wanted anyway.
Which was their original plan.
So hence, a little bit of haggling, right, that happened, and because this was a little
bit experimental, kind of rolled the dice to see, okay, you know, how much carry, right,
and try to find that spot, because, yes, there are concern decors that were not, you know,
just giving away the store on what's obviously the larger structure here, right.
I mean, I think staff's done pretty good due diligence, but we might add, we might be able
to think about adding a different form that helps to itemize, just so that it helps clarify
for us, right, because we're not involved in the construction of it, but obviously, just
give us a little bit better handle on what was spent on what.
Cameron, I have a comment, we've been having conversations about a lot of our different
policies and procedures.
We're going to take some time at some point and kind of go through, and this came up the
other day too, in our conversations about can we create some type of formal itemization
and let our applicants know what we're looking for so that it's all the same, right.
Prior to construction.
Prior to construction, so they know that that's the deal up front, because asking them to
come in and then magically go back in person, that's also inviting.
Here's where I struggle.
Just for, I am for the beginning this, I don't want, I just, I want to just keep our ducks
in a row, because I feel like new siding, you should be able to do, it's this much per
square foot, this is how much we did of the square foot and then click siding windows
on the George roof.
I don't, I just don't think that the builder they used couldn't do that for them.
That's the only thing I'm struggling with it all luck together, and I'm, because this
has to go to before Council, correct.
Yes, that's my fear.
And that's what I'm trying to protect.
Staff did express it and we just, they said that their builder could not do it.
So, the chair may ask a question.
So for the purposes of helping us stay on posting.
Yeah, I want to ask a couple of clarifying questions.
Does the application meet current criteria.
Yes.
Okay.
Cool.
Can you remind me, frankly, of how much of a tax exemption they're getting up to 50%
of their property tax.
Up to 50%.
Other city property tax.
Cool.
And so what I'm hearing is probably an appetite for future changes.
Yeah.
Okay, cool.
And so I just, I think, from a posting perspective, I'm going to be mindful of what the application
is, and I think you're potentially very spot on in noting that some data could help set
them up for success at Council.
But let's keep in mind what the request is and what the criteria of consideration are.
And I'm happy to bring up the areas if that helps you all make a decision where it shows
the invoices.
No, I don't need to see invoices.
My question is for the new structure qualifying for that, because it is not historic.
It is clearly new structure.
It is tied to the property as a whole.
It is tied to that.
They added on for that, and that is where in the past we've had issues of definition
of improvement.
And I was just trying to skirt around that.
Because of trying to explain to Council what an improvement is.
Yeah.
So that's my struggle.
That's a good point.
I mean, we need to be able to do that.
But that needs to be done and clear before it's approved.
At the outset.
Because they've made every criteria we put in front of them.
The act.
Period.
We need to be able to do that.
So no, we're not going to musical.
We can't do that.
No.
Well, I'm going to put forward a motion that we approve a staff recommendation.
With maybe a proviso that we put it into a future meeting to discuss something
procedural.
Comments from Council.
That makes sense.
And just so that they know that we're aware.
And we're also on point here.
And we'll be proactively making sure that it's doing the benefits that we've
been asked.
Kelly, do you need that summary?
That would be great.
How is it going to read back?
Sorry.
So, okay, so I'm making a motion to accept staff recommendations.
That we're getting here to approve.
With the additional provision that we then come back and revisit.
If there's some type of additional.
Framework or.
That can be useful and parsing out.
Some of the concerns.
And she just raised.
Is that, is that succinct enough?
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Second.
All in favor, raise your hands.
Anyone opposed.
Okay.
All right.
The next one is.
Okay.
And add additional solar panels on the roof for an existing resident.
Located at 2224 Houston place in the West.
Area historic district.
The site is located on the north side of Houston place.
East of Thomas street.
Cameron will give us that.
Presentation.
The current solar panels.
The owner is Theodore wood.
And also a circa 1940 construction.
This is proposed project is an installation of 40 or 50 solar panels.
So 14 new additional panels, which are highlighted here.
And red.
Replacing the current 36 solar panels on the rest of those,
which are shown here.
And that was the existing conditions.
The current system is undersized.
For the property owners, existing energy usage.
Additionally, energy costs have increased since their installation in
2023.
The structural and material detail that are shown.
It would rise a maximum of eight inches from the roof.
The ones that are currently on the roof rise a maximum of 10 inches.
In addition.
This is just some additional structural material detailing,
showing the actual kind of solar panel being utilized.
And some of the additional.
Mechanical aspects of holding it on the roof.
Staffs analysis did look at the standards for rehabilitation,
specifically looking at nine and 10.
In addition to that,
I'm going to show you a little bit of a summary of the requirements for
this project looking specifically at skylights and solar panels,
which states that the historic landmark commission may allow skylights
and solar panels on a building.
If their placement does not have an adverse effect on the architecture of
a building or the district as a whole.
So stuff is recommending approval of the certificate of appropriateness
requests to install solar panels at two to two for Houston place as it
does meet the secretary of interior standards.
Any questions?
And I can go back to.
I have a question.
Yes.
I am just curious.
Why panels that were installed two years ago,
like I understand having energy needs.
And the need for more panels.
I guess from like a.
I'm just curious why the other 36 have to be replaced already.
I don't know.
And I don't know that that's necessarily our purview or that it matters.
I just was curious.
They basically just said it was undersized and that they want a new
panels that provided greater power.
So they're getting rid of the old panels and installing all the panels.
Correct.
And then adding additional 14.
That's on the second story structure or the second story roof here,
which they currently exist.
And then under reared the property.
The original proposal, they had the 14 panels here,
but stuff asked them to move them to the rear.
Cause I remember this.
Yes.
So stuff already tried to.
Work with that and move them to the rear of the property.
And that's on a separate structure on the rear of the property that
they're adding.
So this is an addition to that main structure.
So this is their one story East wing.
This is a two story structure. And then that's a rear edition.
Do we have a photo of looking at it on straight on the property?
Instead of just a roof.
I think all that will be visible from the street from the front.
I live next door to this house.
We'll be the main structure of the part on the front.
That's what I like to see.
The additional ones look to be on the.
The back would be, you have to sit from the backyard.
Right.
Move them back there.
And I think that's a good move.
14 additional panels.
Currently.
There's panels right here.
There's panels on the front.
Staff had them remove the rest of the back.
So there's no panels here.
Currently there's panels there.
Let's see if there's an existing.
Wait, there's panels on the front.
Yep.
There's currently a panel sitting on that.
We approve it on the front.
Yes, we did.
Yes.
Okay.
That was my surprise.
And listen to the.
Yeah, they were approved for the second story.
We're flying off the first.
It was approved with conditions that all panels that were proposed here removed to the rear.
That I remember.
Okay.
So everything will be the additional 14 will be in the back.
There won't be anything.
This additional visible from this.
I'm not looking here.
Northwest ish.
Okay.
Yeah.
Cause that's why.
Cause yeah.
The sun.
Right.
How much sun they catch, right?
So that may be a factor in moving them back away from this side of the South.
Side of the house.
That may be where it's like, Oh,
The savings weren't there and then the cost of increase.
Yeah.
So we need to add some more.
Okay.
No, that's clicking a little more.
Yeah.
Unfortunately.
I'm not sure.
That was one of the discussions that DME stated.
That was most solar panels.
You want them on the south facing.
But that obviously.
HLC's main concern is with design and look from the street.
So that's why the requests have been to the rear of the property at the time.
Given that.
I don't know.
I'll make a motion to accept staff recommendation.
I'll say.
Cause I have.
The first decision.
Sure.
All right.
We've had a motion.
And that's presented by staff.
All in favor.
Opposed.
Unanimous.
Interesting is to hear from people that have gone to the southern panel.
I'm just curious.
And then we can do what we do.
Okay.
Our next item is HLC two, three dash zero three, three.
It's a whole discussion and give staff direction regarding the list of
potential future local landmarks.
Yes. So.
We're just going to.
Okay. So I'm looking back at the 2019 historic preservation plan.
I believe I mentioned this last meeting briefly, but.
There was a workshop and they had participants had determined some
potential local landmarks that they felt that we should.
You know,
We wanted to present that to you all to determine.
So there's three options listed on the second page.
Sending letters of designation interest to all properties on the list,
sending letters of designation interests,
all properties that have not undergone any exterior modifications.
So there are 11 properties on that existing list that have
undergone some type of exterior alteration.
Based off the permits that we pulled from.
Our community development software.
So.
Staff is just seeking direction from you all.
We should pursue these as potential designations.
All of the ones on the list.
If we should just pursue part of them or if staff should just.
Completely ignore it and we can just start fresh.
We should at least collect something.
I think the easiest for me would be to send letters of
designation interest to all properties that have not undergone any exterior modifications.
Do we know?
We don't know the extent of the modifications and whether they would
preclude them from qualifying.
Just know that they pulled a permit for something that.
Yeah.
But I feel like the ones that.
Just to clarify.
I'm thinking of the steps here too.
The ones that haven't had any modifications that that when you know.
So those are the ones to go to and say, hey, before you start getting into that.
Right.
How about this?
What do you think of this?
And then maybe phase two would then be approaching the ones that have had
modifications and trying to make those determinations because that's going to be
a little bit more.
Could be just like the one we just approved.
Those were modifications that were.
Yeah.
Fantastic.
Sure.
But I'm just thinking for the sake of simplicity sake.
Like step on.
To start with the 11.
Yeah.
At the same time, if they pull permits, we know they've done some sort of.
Work.
They're investing in their property, so they could.
I don't know.
That could just mean something that they're.
We know that they're.
Maybe they're more likely to be owner occupied and they're in there kind of
doing maybe a little bit more maintenance.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay.
So I'm just going to go ahead and.
I'm just going to go ahead and.
Would this be a similar process like how when we nominate properties, we reach out.
So it's really just a initial check in.
Just so you know, we do this.
If you're investing in your property.
Yes.
That exact letter would be sent to these properties that you all.
First contact.
Yep.
I'm inclined to do all of that.
Okay.
For the very reasons that Commissioner Breger already mentioned.
See, I don't want to.
I'll go with that.
You mean the whole list or?
The whole list.
Okay.
Sorry.
I'm sorry.
I think I said a little bit.
I'm not seeing it.
We have some prioritization here.
We can help pop the little request.
Don't be obsessed with prioritizing.
Yeah.
I'll go with that.
Like why leave some if we're doing it.
Round them all up.
Sure.
Send a letter to all of them.
Yeah.
It's kind of my fault.
Any other.
Yeah.
I see several that are near the top of the higher percentages.
Made the.
Cut.
That very first one.
Is that.
So that is the little.
Trouble in the woods.
Oh, of course.
That's the one.
Correct.
So.
For now.
You still send it.
However.
Nice will be nice.
Yeah.
Doesn't hurt to try again.
Okay.
You agree.
It needs to be on the national registry.
Like seriously.
I don't know.
I think I would go ahead and send it.
I think I would go ahead and send a letter.
Because you never know.
You never know.
I'll just leave it at that.
Yeah.
And.
If they were interested in that.
If they might be interested in that.
Gibson house, which is next door to me.
Okay.
I would move to send letters to all.
On this list, including the 11.
That have exterior.
Yes.
Second.
All right.
All in favor.
You want to post.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Okay.
Next item.
Item for a.
Receive a report.
Hold the discussion and give staff direction on the historic lane commission request for
local historic designation of eligible.
Historic property.
Should I mention.
Okay.
So.
Just down the street from my house.
Although.
I think it's 1515.
Apparently it's on fire station.
It was a state farm.
Yes.
Elementary school.
So it was purchased by two friends of mine.
I guess I'll consider friends.
Amanda coffee and Jenny Yates.
They're lawyers.
It's great lawyer office.
And they.
I am sure.
Spent a ton of money.
Fixing that up.
Okay.
They made a lot of.
They made exterior changes.
I don't know.
I mean it's.
It was different.
This is for sure.
I mean.
So.
It looks a lot nicer than it did when they bought it.
The interior is great too.
I got a little torn.
But.
I didn't.
I didn't know that.
Just a block away from it.
There was this building that was a fire station.
That's pretty cool.
It has a big plaque outside still.
You know.
But I think.
I don't think.
It's 19 teens.
I believe.
Yeah.
Maybe I was dehydrated when I read it.
I don't know.
I could be totally wrong.
So I just.
I thought that was really cool.
Yeah.
I don't know.
There was this old fire station that was a state farm office for a while.
I don't know what it was before that.
But.
Again.
I don't think.
Y'all have to look at it.
See.
I think it's worth looking at.
To see what changes have been made.
Like what did it look like before versus what it looks like now?
It may not be enough of.
I don't know.
It's different.
Like I know they have some really big window that they said this was where the garage door
was at one point.
For the fire truck.
Yeah.
For the fire truck.
So it kind of looks cool that it sort of looks almost garage door-like.
But there was some like covered thing on there and they got rid of that.
And I don't know.
I don't know if that was original.
I don't know if that was.
Actually it probably wasn't.
Because I think it was where the garage door would have been.
The cover.
Was the cover kind of a cloth thing?
It was either cloth or like where it was like plexiglass almost.
I mean it was really not.
I bet that were an addition.
That wouldn't be original.
I don't know if it would be original.
If I remember it was red.
Cause I was thinking the.
I think what they did.
It was a lot better.
I don't know what they did with the cover on it.
I don't know.
I mean they changed the color.
Colors don't matter.
Would really as short.
There it is too.
There we go.
I think it was a single bay.
Of my perception.
You know just the one.
Over his head.
You see if the porch.
I think so too.
It's just one.
And that may be that they had that entrance thing there.
Because they didn't know what else to do with it.
It's like an old garage door that was open.
So that was station one.
It was station one.
So that was station one.
It was station one.
So that was station one.
And I don't know if that was original.
I don't know if that was original.
I think when these are building more permanent structures.
Oh I gotcha yeah.
Because they have the one that was down up Oak Street.
Oh I gotcha yeah.
Because they have the one that was down up Oak Street.
Can you remind us for exterior changes what would make something not eligible anymore?
So you have to remember that at the local level you all have people are able to designate their property based off 13 different criteria.
So some of that criteria might not be architecturally based.
Okay, so we did get an update with the Southridge Neighborhood Historic Resource Survey.
The consultant has submitted all the properties that they documented in Southridge to the Texas Historical Commission.
So those are now undergoing review by the Texas Historical Commission.
We're hoping to hear by August what properties they determined to be eligible and those properties they determined not to be eligible for listing.
So just wanted to give you that update.
That's my only update.
Anyone else?
Oh, we have one more.
Sorry.
Every time I go.
Sorry, I know.
Sorry.
So our last event for the Dent Revealed was two Fridays ago.
It was the Dent Invintive Resort.