[00:00:01]
I WANT TO WELCOME YOU TODAY.THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION.
[Landmark Commission on May 6, 2024.]
TODAY IS MONDAY, MAY 6.WE'LL START OUT WITH ATTENDANCE.
>> COMMISSIONER ALBERSTADT IS ABSENT TODAY.
>> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS ABSENT.
>> COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON?
>> COUNCILMEMBER COLLINS WILL BE ABSENT.
>> THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE ARE HEARING TODAY? NO? MOVING ON, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
I TRUST ALL OF YOU HAVE HAD A MINUTE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES.
DO YOU FIND THAT THERE ARE ANY CORRECTIONS? NONE? THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY, CATHERINE?
>> NO WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVED.
>> OUR NEXT CASE IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.
IT IS CASE 24LC-014, 1807 AVENUE L. DOES ANYBODY SEE ANYTHING IN THIS CASE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE US TO PULL IT OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PUT IT ONTO THE REGULAR AGENDA SO THAT YOU CAN EXPLORE THE CONTEXT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER? NO? HAVING HAD TIME TO REVIEW THE CASE, CAN I HAVE A MOTION?
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE WITH STAFF COMMENTS 24LC-014.
>> SARAH SECONDED. DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? IT IS APPROVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MOVING ON TO CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. NO, I'M SORRY.
NEW BUSINESS ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THIS IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
>> I'LL JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS DANIEL LUNSFORD'S CASE.
I HAVE A CONFLICT ON IT, AND I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE STAFF REPORT OR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
I'M JUST PRESENTING IT IN HIS ABSENCE.
>> IT'LL BE THE SAME FOR THE NEXT CASE.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING A REAR ADDITION.
FIVE NOTICES WERE SENT, ONE RETURNED TO THAT ONE IN FAVOR.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ADD A TWO-STORY, 963 SQUARE-FOOT REAR ADDITION TO THE HOUSE.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT SUBMITTAL, THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS AND MATERIALS, THAT'S LISTED FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
CONFORMANCE STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE ADDITIONS ARE LOCATED IN LOCATION D, NOT TYPICALLY VISIBLE REAR FACADE.
MORE FLEXIBILITY AND TREATMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED, ESPECIALLY FOR COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATION THAT IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
IN THIS CASE, THE ADDITION IS NARROWER THAN THE MAIN HOUSE, RESULTING IN A LOWER ROOF LINE THAT WILL NOT AFFECT THE STREET FACING ROOF.
THE PROPOSED SIDING WILL BE SMOOTH UNTEXTURED CEMENT BOARD TO MATCH EXISTING SIDING DIMENSIONS, AND THE ROOF MATERIAL WILL BE COMPOSITION SHINGLES.
NOTE THAT THE EXISTING ROOF IS ALSO OF COMPOSITION SHINGLES.
ON THE NORTH ELEVATION, A VERTICAL CEMENT BOARD TRIM PIECE IS INCLUDED TO MARK THE EXTENT OF THE NEW ADDITION.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REUSE EXISTING WINDOWS AND DOORS AND PROVIDE MATCHING SALVAGE WINDOWS IN NEW OPENINGS ON THE ADDITION.
THE PROPOSED REAR STAIRS AND HAND RAIL ARE OF THE TYPICAL SYMBOL SQUARE DESIGN RECOMMENDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO ADD FOUR LOUVERED SHUTTERS AND TRIM TO MATCH THOSE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE.
NOTE THAT THE DESIGN STANDARDS DO NOT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT SUCH DECORATIVE TOUCHES.
STAFF HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED TURNED WOOD POSTS, PROPOSED FOR THE NEW REAR SCREEN PORCH.
IN ORDER TO FURTHER DIFFERENTIATE OLD FROM NEW, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE POST BE SIMPLE IN DESIGN WITHOUT EMBELLISHMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, SPECIFIC CONDITION 1, THE EXTERIOR MODIFICATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT PRESENTED IN EXHIBIT A OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS.
A, THE REAR POST SHALL BE SIMPLE AND SQUARE IN DESIGN, AND ITEMS 2-6 ARE STANDARD. WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THEN AN AERIAL SHOWING ITS LOCATION AND THE DRAWING SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE ADDITION.
[00:05:04]
NEXT SLIDE. HERE ARE THE SIDE AND FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS. NEXT SLIDE.HERE ARE MORE EXHIBITS, INCLUDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS AND THE BEFORE AND AFTER SITE PLANS, AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
I THINK THOSE ARE MIXED UP. I THINK THAT'S SOUTH, NORTH, WEST, AND LOOKING SOUTH.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS CASE? NO? I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF MR. AND MRS. OXMAN, OR PERHAPS MR. EASTERWOOD?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M [INAUDIBLE] AND I'M AN ARCHITECT ON PROJECT, I'M AT 123, 25TH STREET.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IT'S A FAIRLY SIZABLE ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, AND MAINLY PURPOSE IS A NEW KITCHEN, A DEN AREA AND THEN STORAGE AS AN ATTIC SPACE ABOVE ESSENTIALLY.
I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH GOING TO A SQUARE COLUMN.
THAT'S PERFECTLY OKAY WITH ME.
IT'LL BE EASIER TO PUT THE SCREENS IN THERE.
>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, NOT THAT IT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS, IN THE BACK ADDITION, I NOTICED THAT THERE WERE TWO SETS OF STAIRCASES.
IS ONE CONNECT TO THE UPSTAIRS PORCH?
>> LOOKS ON THE BACK ELEVATION THAT THERE'S TWO SETS OF STAIRS.
ONE LOOKS LIKE IT HAS A LANDING IN THERE.
>> ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THAT UPPER DRAWING WHERE YOU SEE ALL THOSE NOTES.
>> YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S AN ENTRY INTO THE NEW ADDITION THROUGH THE SCREEN PORCH THERE OFF OF A LANDING.
THERE ARE STAIRS THAT GO TO EITHER SIDE.
YES, THERE ARE TWO STAIRS, BUT THEY GO TO THE SAME PLACE.
YOU MAY HAVE SEEN A DEMOLITION DRAWING BECAUSE THERE IS AN EXISTING STAIRCASE ON THE BACK.
IT DOES GO TO THE SECOND FLOOR.
IT MAY JUST BE THAT YOU WERE LOOKING AT A DEMO DRAWING AND IT SHOWS THAT SECOND STORY STAIRCASE, BUT IT'S COMING OFF.
>> LEFT WAS THE LANDING AND UP, AND THE ONE WAS LEFT.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO? DID THE PROPERTY OWNERS WANT TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT THE PROJECT? NO? WELL, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THIS COMMISSION TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON CASE 24LC-014.
IT IS A LOT OF WOOD TO CHOP THERE, BUT IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE 24LC-014 WITH THE CONDITION OF THE RAILINGS. IS IT THREE?
>> IT'S THE 24TH YEAR OF LANDMARK COMMISSION CASE 13.
>> THE CONDITION OF THE RAILINGS BEING SQUARE.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. DISCUSSION? NO. LOOKS LIKE AN EXCITING PROJECT.
THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY IT, I LOVE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STAIRS UPSTAIRS. ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU. WE ARE MOVING ON TO CASE 24LC-015.
>> AGAIN, I'LL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT I HAVE A CONFLICT WITH THIS CASE AND WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STAFF REPORT, AND I'M JUST PRESENTING IN DANIEL'S ABSENCE.
THIS IS 24LC-015, 2828 MARKET, IT'S A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF A CANOPY AND CHANGES TO WINDOW LOCATIONS.
FIVE NOTICES WERE SENT, ZERO RETURNED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR A NUMBER OF CHANGES TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO FACILITATE ITS USE AS A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING.
A SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS PROVIDED BELOW AND THAT WAS LISTED FOR YOU IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
THE APPLICANT'S COMPLETE SUBMITTAL IS INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT A.
NOTE THAT ONLY THE SOUTH FACADE OF THE BUILDING IS CONSIDERED HISTORIC, THE REST OF THE STRUCTURE WAS REBUILT FROM THE GROUND UP IN 2019.
NOTE ALSO THAT THE SUBJECT STRUCTURE IS LISTED AS THE CITY OF GALVESTON HISTORICAL LANDMARK IN 2007,
[00:10:04]
THE STAR STATE COMPANY NUMBER 3 FIREHOUSE BUILT IN 1903 AND ATTRIBUTED TO ARCHITECT GEORGE STOWE.THE DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH SPECIFICALLY APPLY TO THE STRUCTURE ARE INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT B IN THE STAFF REPORT.
PLEASE NOTE THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS.
CONFORMANCE: STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST PARTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE PROPOSED WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS, MODIFICATIONS, AND RELOCATIONS ALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO THIS PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO RECREATE EXISTING WINDOWS AND DOORS IN THE HISTORIC SOUTH FACADE AS THE DESIGN STANDARDS ALLOW.
FINALLY, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REBUILD THE HISTORIC HANDRAILS AS SHOWN IN HISTORIC PHOTOS EXHIBIT C.
STAFF HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED COVERED ELEVATED BALCONY.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS PROHIBIT SUCH MODIFICATIONS ALONG THE EAST AND WEST FACADES.
IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSED FENCE DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE DESIGN STANDARDS ONLY ALLOW FOR SOLID MASONRY OR OPEN METAL PICKET FENCING.
THE PROPOSED FENCE AND MATCHING SCREENING FOR THE HVAC EQUIPMENT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REQUEST BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
CONDITION 1, THE EXTERIOR MODIFICATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT PRESENTED IN EXHIBIT A OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS.
A, THE PROPOSED ELEVATED COVERED BALCONY BE OMITTED FROM THE EAST FACADE.
B, FENCING AND HVAC SCREENING SHALL CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARD SPECIFIC TO THE STAR STATE COMPANY NUMBER 3 FIRE STATION, AND C, THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED DOORS ON NON-HISTORIC FACADE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER OR DESIGNEE AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING.
ITEMS 2-6 ARE STANDARD, AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THE CURRENT PICTURE AND THEN TWO HISTORIC PHOTOS. NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION, AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE PROPOSED BALCONY ON THE EAST SIDE. NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS THE REAR ELEVATION, AND THE EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS.
THIS IS A SLIDE THAT WAS INCLUDED FROM THE APPLICANT SO HE'LL EXPLAIN THE ITEMS ON THAT.
THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? > [OVERLAPPING] FOR THE RECORD, GHF DOES NOT OWN IT ANYMORE.
>> CORRECT. THANK YOU, CHRISTIAN.
IT'S NO LONGER OWNED BY THE GALVESTON HISTORICAL FOUNDATION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] OWNER'S NAME ON THE DRAWINGS, AND I THOUGHT, WELL, MAYBE IT'S PENDING THIS APPROVAL [OVERLAPPING] AFFORD WITH IT.
>> WELL, THE OWNERSHIP CHANGED FROM THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION.
GHF HAD PROVIDED THEIR PERMISSION FOR THE APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AT THAT TIME, BUT THE OWNERSHIP HAS CHANGED. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> I'M ASSUMING GHF IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS? THE ONE QUESTION I DID HAVE IS THAT, WE'RE OPPOSING THE COVERED BALCONY ON THE EAST SIDE, BUT NOT ON THE NORTH SIDE. WHY IS THAT?
>> WELL, THE STANDARDS SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT THE EAST AND WEST SIDE SHOULD NOT HAVE BALCONIES, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT SAME PROHIBITION ON THE REAR.
>> WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THAT, IF I MAY ASK?
>> WELL, I THINK THE REASON IS TO MAINTAIN THE BULK OF THE BUILDING AS BEING, OBVIOUSLY, A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND THAT THERE WEREN'T BALCONIES AT THOSE LOCATIONS.
>> THE [INAUDIBLE] THE RAILROAD, RIGHT?
>> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO? I'M GOING TO ASK IF THE ARCHITECT, MR. EASTERWOOD, WOULD LIKE TO STEP UP.
ANNOUNCE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN, PLEASE.
I'LL JUST ADD THIS CASE NUMBER.
AGAIN, I'M THE ARCHITECT ON THE BUILDING, IT IS AN EXCITING PROJECT.
OBVIOUSLY, IT'S BEEN NEGLECTED.
WELL, IT HASN'T BEEN NEGLECTED, BUT IT WAS NEGLECTED BEFORE GHF TOOK IT OVER AND REHABBED THE BACK PART OF IT.
BUT IT'S STILL BEEN A LONG TIME COMING ON THIS ONE.
I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIRES HAVE BEEN KICKED JUST AT MY OFFICE ABOUT THIS BUILDING, AND FINALLY, SOMETHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN THERE.
IT IS GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL, AND I THINK THE FEAR IS THAT IT'S GOING TO APPEAR RESIDENTIAL AND THAT'S NOT THE OWNER'S INTENT, THAT'S NOT MY INTENT EITHER.
I THINK THE BIGGEST THING IN CONTENTION IS REALLY THAT EAST SIDE BALCONY.
EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE'RE REALLY PROPOSING, OTHER THAN THE FENCING, CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS AND REALLY COMES RIGHT OUT OF THE STANDARDS,
[00:15:05]
INCLUDING RECONSTRUCTING THE TWO FRONT DOORS IN THE FASHION THAT WAS PROPOSED ACTUALLY BY DAVID WATSON ORIGINALLY AND MATCHES THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION OF THOSE WINDOWS.I INCLUDED THIS SLIDE RIGHT HERE, OR I ASKED STAFF TO INCLUDE THIS SLIDE, AND THANK YOU, TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS AT ONE TIME, ANYWAY, A STRUCTURE ON THAT EAST SIDE, AND IT WAS USED FOR TRAINING PURPOSES.
WE TRIED TO KEEP IT AS DISCRETE AS POSSIBLE, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE USED FOR TRAINING ANYMORE AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE A STAIRCASE LIKE THAT, BUT JUST TO SHOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOMETHING THERE IN THE PAST.
I JUST PROPOSED THAT TO THE COMMISSION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TO LET THAT REMAIN.
THE PURPOSE OF IT REALLY, PEOPLE ASK, WHY DO YOU WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE EAST SIDE ANYWAY? THE REASON IS JUST FOR AFTERNOON SHADE, THAT'S IT.
IN THE SUMMERTIME, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SHADE ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO GET THAT NORTHWEST SUN ON THE BACKSIDE.
THAT'S THE POINT OF THAT. THE OTHER PICTURES THAT I'VE GOT UP THERE ARE OF THE DOOR THAT GHF HAS CURRENTLY AND IS PROPOSING TO PUT IN THEMSELVES AS PART OF THE CLOSING.
THEN THE OTHER TWO PICTURES UP AT THE TOP ARE SHOWING A PROPERTY ON MARKET STREET THAT HAS A SIMILAR FENCE TO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
THAT PROPERTY, IT'S SET BACK A LITTLE BIT FROM THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING SO IT SHOWS THAT IT'S DIFFERENT OR IT'S NEWER.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TYPE OF FENCE, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE SOME PRIVACY.
MASONRY FENCE IS OBVIOUSLY QUITE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE AND THEN A METAL FENCE DOESN'T OFFER YOU THE PRIVACY.
ODDLY ENOUGH, THIS FENCE IS ON THE GHF HOME TOUR.
>> ISN'T THAT THE BOTTLING COMPANY?
>> IS IT BOTTLING? DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. EASTERWOOD? NO?
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE? NO?
>> I HAD ONE LAST QUESTION, BRAX I FORGOT TO ASK IT.
IF I CAN JUST CALL YOU UP REAL QUICK.
I'M SORRY, SIR, IF YOU BEAR WITH ME.
IT SHOWS IN THE REPORT THAT THERE'S SIGNAGE THAT'S GOING TO GO UP THERE, BUT I COULDN'T SEE ANY REFERENCE TO WHAT THE SIGNAGE WOULD SAY.
>> WE HAVEN'T PROPOSED ANY SIGNAGE.
>> YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT IN THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
>> THAT COMES FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINE DOCUMENT.
>> THERE'S NO PROPOSED SIGNAGE TO GO WITH THIS? THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO KNOW. THANK YOU.
>> WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION THAT THE FRONT BALCONY WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGN.
>> WE'RE NOT QUESTIONING THAT AT ALL. NOT QUESTIONING THAT AT ALL.
IT'S VERY EVIDENT IN THE PHOTOS, THAT THAT CRISS-CROSS.
>> SORRY, SIR, COULD YOU COME BACK TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. IT'S ON THE DRAWINGS.
I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
I'M GOING TO STEP OUT BECAUSE I TRY TO HANG BACK ON MOST OF THESE AND LET MY COMMISSIONERS DO THE WORK.
BUT I'M GOING TO STEP OUT ON THIS ONE.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS CASE.
LET ME GET BACK TO CASE 24LC-015.
BASICALLY, AND WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, STRIKING A AND ALLOWING THE PROPOSED COVERED BALCONY ON THE EAST FACADE.
STRIKE THAT FROM THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND GO FORWARD WITH B AND C,
[00:20:03]
AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY IF I GET A SECOND.>> I AGREE WITH YOU. BUT I WOULD ALSO ALLOW THE NON-CONFORMING FENCE.
BECAUSE OF THAT LOCATION, IF WE REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE RESIDENTIALLY, THEY'RE GOING TO NEED SOME PRIVACY.
THAT'S A HIGH TRAFFIC COMMERCIAL AREA AND IT'S STILL COMING UP.
I WOULDN'T WANT TO SIT OUT ON MY PORCH OR HAVE MY BACK DOOR EXPOSED WITHOUT A NICE FENCE LIKE THAT.
I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE ALSO ALLOW THAT FENCE.
>> YOU WANT TO STRIKE B AS WELL?
>> AND ALLOW THE FENCE TO PROPOSED?
>> DISCUSSION. I'M PROBABLY ONE OF A HANDFUL OF.
>> I'M SORRY. IF I COULD JUST CLARIFY, WAS THAT A SECOND, MISS BAKER?
>> SHE SECONDED IT WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION, AND I AGREED TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE MOTION.
RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ALLOW THE BALCONY AND TO ALLOW THE FENCING.
THE REASON WHY IS, AND THIS IS MY FEAR, I CAN LOOK AT THESE PLANS AND KNOW THAT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AND SIZABLE INVESTMENT GOING INTO THIS BUILDING.
WHICH I KNOW WE'LL PRESERVE IT FOR DECADES TO COME.
A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE, MYSELF, CATHERINE, DONNA THAT REMEMBER THIS BUILDING WHEN IT WAS AN OTHER OWNERSHIP AND LITERALLY THE ROOF WAS CAVING IN AND WE KNEW THAT IF THE ROOF CAVED IN, THE STRUCTURE WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE IN ON ITSELF, AND WE WERE IN FITS TRYING TO GET THE OWNER TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT.
FINALLY, GHF RESCUED IT TO THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW THE BACKSTORY.
EVERYTHING BUT THE FRONT FACADE CAME DOWN.
THERE WASN'T ANYTHING LEFT ON EITHER SIDE OR THE BACK OF IT.
WHILE I KNOW IT'S A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, WE ARE ALLOWED LEEWAY AND LESS PROMINENT AREAS.
I THINK THAT WHEN SOMEONE IS COMING IN AND REALLY PUTTING SOME EFFORT AND INVESTMENT INTO THIS BUILDING, WE ARE PROCURING ITS FUTURE.
LITERALLY, IT WILL STILL SAY FIRE STATION ON THE FRONT OF IT AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT'S WHAT THAT IS.
THAT'S WHY I HAVE MADE THIS MOTION BECAUSE IT IS NOT A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
IT'S BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR A WHILE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE THAT WOULD PICK IT UP FOR WHAT PARTICULAR USE AS AN OLD FIRE STATION.
BUT I WAS JUST HOPING SOMEBODY WOULD COME UP AND SAY, THIS WOULD BE A COOL RESIDENCE AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
>> I DID TOO. THERE'S ONE OVER ON THE L THAT'S AN OLD FIRE STATION.
>> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU [OVERLAPPING].
>> NO? ALL IN FAVOR? CONGRATULATIONS. MOTION PASSES.
BUT YOU CAN ASK BRAX AFTERWARDS.
MOVING ON, WE HAVE LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS.
THE NEXT CASE IS 24LC-010, IS THIS 1705 BALL.
IT'S A REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS GALVESTON LANDMARK.
THIRTY TWO NOTICES WERE SENT FOR RETURN TO THOSE FOUR IN FAVOR.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING DESIGNATION AS THE GALVESTON LANDMARK FOR THE A. G. WALKER HOUSE.
A. G. WALKER WAS THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE HOUSE, BUILT CIRCA 1887.
HE OWNED THE HOUSE APPROXIMATELY 21 YEARS AND USED IT AS TENANT HOUSING.
IT SURVIVED THE 1900 STORM COMPARATIVELY WELL, THOUGH IT DID LOSE ITS ROOF AND REQUIRED MINOR REPAIRS OTHERWISE.
ORIGINALLY FROM PENNSYLVANIA AND GERMANY, RESPECTIVELY, AARON AND CHARLOTTE WAG WERE BOTH TEENS WHEN THEY MOVED TO GALVESTON.
THEY WERE MARRIED ON APRIL 7TH, 1878 BY RABBI A. BLOOM AT CONGREGATION B'NAI, ISRAEL IN 1908 AARON AND CHARLOTTE WAG PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE WALKER, AND THEY LIVED IN THE HOUSE FOR NEARLY 37 YEARS.
THE PROPERTY RETAINS A HIGH DEGREE OF AUTHENTICITY AND IS A CONTRIBUTED STRUCTURE TO THE EAST END HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THE PROPERTY DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES BECAUSE IT'S LOCATED WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED HISTORIC DISTRICT.
PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST AT MAY 7TH.
CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING REQUESTS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION, AND THEY WILL HEAR THE REQUEST ON MAY 23RD, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND WEST, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF MR. AND MRS. HOWINGTON ARE HERE.
[00:25:02]
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME ON UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR HOUSE?>> I GUESS TO BEGIN WITH, I SPENT PROBABLY ABOUT 20-25 HOURS RESEARCHING THIS, IT WAS FASCINATING.
THE HOUSE HAD PROBABLY AT LEAST 200 PEOPLE LIVING IN IT.
MOST OF THE PEOPLE WERE YOUR BUTCHERS, AND BAKERS, AND SEA MEN, AND CLERKS, AND JUST THE REGULAR PEOPLE WERE LIVING THERE AND IT WAS FASCINATING.
THE WAG FAMILY WAS A JEWISH FAMILY.
YOU CAN FIND THEM LISTED IN THE NEWSPAPER FOR THEIR WEDDINGS, AND THEIR TRIPS, AND OTHER EVENTS HAPPENING AT THE SYNAGOGUE.
IT'S JUST RICH IN HISTORY, THE HOUSES.
I COULD TELL YOU LOTS OF STORIES FROM THE NEIGHBORS, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE APPROPRIATE.
BUT THE NEIGHBORS ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF THIS BECOMING A LANDMARK DESIGNATION AS WELL, AND THE HOUSE REALLY DOES DESERVE IT.
>> WELL, AND IT ALSO DOES PROVIDE THAT EXTRA LAYER OF PROTECTION.
BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE'RE IN A NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, THERE CAN ALWAYS BE A CIRCUMSTANCE IN TIME WHERE WE LOSE THAT DESIGNATION FOR SOME UNFORESEEN REASON.
SO YOU'RE JUST GIVING YOURSELF AN EXTRA LAYER OF PROTECTION SHOULD PLANNING AND SOFTWARE APPROVE IT.
I THINK YOU'RE WISE. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOME.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE HOWINGTONS? NO? THANK YOU SO MUCH.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THIS CASE? NO? PLEASE, COME ON UP. IF YOU COULD STEP UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN, PLEASE.
>> MY NAME IS MARIA CAGO, AND I'M A DIRECT NEIGHBOR.
I DIDN'T SEND MY NOTE IN, BUT I APPROVE.
>> WELL, WE THANK YOU FOR COMING IN.
>> ARE YOU ACROSS THE STREET, NEXT DOOR?
>> I'M IN THE BACK ON THE ALLEY PART, ABOUT THEIR YARD.
>> I KNEW THE FORMER OWNER, AND SHE WAS A LOVELY LADY. ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADVANCE THIS TO CITY COUNCIL.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CASE 24LC-010.
DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? THANK YOU SO MUCH. IT PASSES.
THANK YOU FOR COMING IN AND DOING THAT.
AGAIN, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE.
ACTUALLY, YOU'RE JUST ONE BLOCK AWAY FROM ME.
WE LOVE THE NEW CHANGES THAT YOU HAVE DONE TO THE HOUSE WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND SO FORTH.
IT'S JUST CHARMING. WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MOVING FORWARD, WE ARE GOING TO GO WITH CASE 24LC-011.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A DESIGNATION AS A LANDMARK, 23 NOTICES WERE SENT HERE, ZERO RETURNED.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS THE GALVESTON LANDMARK.
THE JOHN MARGARET CLARK HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1896.
WHEN CONSTRUCTED, IT CONSISTED OF A FRAME HOUSE WITH A SLATE ROOF, ELEVATED 3.5 FEET ON BRICK PIERS AND CONTAINED FOUR ROOMS, ONE HALL, TWO CLOSETS, ONE BATHROOM, AND TWO PORCHES.
JOHN CLARK IS IDENTIFIED ON THE 1896 RECORD AS THE BUILDING'S ORIGINAL OWNER.
ON AUGUST 12, 1896, CLARK CONTRACTED WITH CARPENTERS, JOHN C. BRAHMAN, AND FRED ROGERS TO ERECT THE HOUSE.
THE CONTRACT STATED THAT THE HOUSE WOULD BE COMPLETED BEFORE OCTOBER 15 OF 1896 AT THE COST OF $1,450.
IT'S UNUSUAL TO KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT THE BUILDER OF THE HOUSE AND THAT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
OFTEN, WE HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP, BUT THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE BUILDER IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL.
>> THE JOHN AND MARGARET CLARK HOUSE RETAINS ALL ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY AS THE SOLE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 3,500 BLOCK OF BROADWAY.
[00:30:05]
THE HOUSE IS A VISUAL REMINDER OF THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ON BROADWAY.THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES FOR NEW GALVESTON LANDMARKS.
PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST ON MAY 7TH.
CITY COUNCIL HAS A FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION, AND THAT WILL BE HEARD ON MAY 23RD, AND THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND WE HAVE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE WEST, EAST, AND SOUTH, AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. ALL RIGHT.
I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF MR. LIACONO IS HERE? DID I PRONOUNCE THAT RIGHT, SIR?
WOULD YOU LIKE TO STEP UP AND SIGN IN, ANNOUNCE YOUR NAME, AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY?
>> I PURCHASED THE HOUSE ON ELVIS PRESLEY'S BIRTHDAY IN 2000.
OVER THE YEARS, IT JUST TAKES MORE AND MORE MONEY TO KEEP IT UP.
I PROBABLY PUT INTO IT THREE TIMES MORE THAN WHAT I ORIGINALLY PAID FOR IT.
MY 24 YEARS THERE, I JUST PLAN ON THE REST OF IT.
THIS IS MY WIFE, CAROLYN FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS.
SHE'S PRETTY MUCH TAKEN IT OVER.
>> I TELL YOU, I LOVE YOUR ROSE ARCHWAY.
>> ACTUALLY, I MET GEORGE IN 2010.
WE MARRIED AT THE GARTEN VEREIN IN 2013, SO WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN MARRIED, I BELIEVE IT'S 11 YEARS NOW.
WE CALL IT OUR FULL TIME HOBBY.
THIS WAS INITIATED BECAUSE OUR NEIGHBORS, THE GOLF CART SHOP, WHO WAS ON BOTH SIDES OF US, RENTING THOSE PROPERTIES, THEY RETIRED AND LEFT AND I WAS ALARMED AND CONCERNED ABOUT WHO MY NEXT NEIGHBORS WOULD BE.
TO BRING YOU UP TO DATE, JUAN VENTURA THAT HAS JVS PERFORMANCE AUTO WHERE THAT'S BEEN AN AUTO SHOP FOR THE LONGEST TIME.
HE PURCHASED IT FROM SONNY FOR THE PEOPLE THAT KNEW THAT PROPERTY BEFORE.
HE'S BOUGHT THE WAREHOUSE NEXT DOOR TO US AND WE'RE PRETTY GOOD NEIGHBORS AND I'VE TOLD HIM AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T PAINT IT RED, I'LL BE FINE WITH IT.
ON THE OTHER SIDE, I UNDERSTAND IT'S OWNED BY THE BEL BONDS PEOPLE.
I'M NOT SURE OF HIS LAST NAME, PRESENTLY HE HAS NOT DECIDED WHETHER HE'S GOING TO RENT IT, OR SELL IT, OR EXACTLY WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO WITH IT.
GEORGE WOULD PREFER THAT THEY PUT IN A FLOWER SHOP NEXT DOOR, BUT WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN?
>> HE HAS CLEANED UP THE PROPERTY AND THERE WAS QUITE A MESS OVER THERE.
A LOT OF THE TIRES THAT WERE CAUSING MOSQUITOES THAT MADE IT DIFFICULT TO GARDEN HAS BEEN REMOVED.
WE WOULD LIKE TO BE AN ANCHOR FOR BETTER THINGS HAPPENING ALONG BROADWAY AND HAVING ATTENDED PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND WATCHED THE PROGRESS ON BROADWAY, THAT'S QUITE A THORNY PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN TO GET IT TURNED AROUND.
WHEN I WAS IN THE ALLEY RECENTLY, PLANTING FLOWERS BACK THERE BECAUSE I PREFERRED OVER WEEDS.
THE OTHER VENTURA, HECTOR, WHO HAS THE PLACE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF 35TH STREET CAME BY TO INQUIRE IF HE COULD BUY THE PROPERTY, AND I TOLD HIM HE'D HAVE TO WAIT TILL WE WERE DEAD, AND BY THE WAY, IT HAS A LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO TEAR IT DOWN.
>> YOU'RE LEAVING FEET FIRST, AS WE SAY.
>> EXACTLY. WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION AND TRUST THAT THIS WILL BE ACCEPTABLE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. YEAH. AS CATHERINE MENTIONED, THERE'S SO FEW OF THESE GEMS LEFT ON BROADWAY THAT GIVE YOU
[00:35:02]
AN IDEA OF WHAT MAIN STREET BROADWAY USED TO LOOK LIKE.I AM SO GLAD YOU'RE DOING THIS AND PRESERVING THIS STRUCTURE FOR ALL TIME, PROTECTING.
>> WELL, AND DOING MY BASIC RESEARCH, AND GEORGE DOING HIS RESEARCH ORIGINALLY, IT'S A HIGH SPOT ON THE ISLAND.
THAT WAS DEFINITELY PROVEN DURING HARVEY.
ANYONE THAT'S READ ISAAC STORM, THERE WAS A HOUSE ON THE CORNER OF 36TH AND BROADWAY.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE HOUSES PEOPLE HELD UP IN DURING THE STORM, SO I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED TO KNOW THAT.
>> IF I WANT TO PIECE MY HOUSE AND MOVE IT OVER THERE.
>> YEAH. ONE OF THE DESCENDANTS OF THE PASH TAGS THAT WERE RELATED TO THE FAMILY THAT HAD THE PROPERTY FOR 83 YEARS HAS COME BY TO SEE IT A COUPLE OF TIMES AND I'VE SHARED THE HISTORY THAT WE NOW HAVE WITH HER AND SHE'S VERY EXCITED.
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS CASE? NO? I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THIS COMMISSION AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. SHARON?
>> I MAKE A MOTION ON 23LC-011 THAT WE APPROVE THIS LANDMARK TO ADVANCE.
>> SECONDED. DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR? PASSES. ISN'T THAT GOOD TO KNOW? ONE MORE STRUCTURE IS SAFE.
TAKE FOR ALL TIMES. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> WE COULD JUST GO BACK THERE [INAUDIBLE].
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION NEXT TIME? SEEING NONE, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.