[00:00:01] GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME, EVERYONE, TO THIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE LANDMARK COMMISSION. TODAY IS MONDAY, AUGUST 4TH AND THE TIME IS 4:00. [Landmark Commission on August 4, 2025.] WE'RE GOING TO START THE MEETING OFF WITH A MOMENT OF SILENCE. CATHERINE HAS SOME WORDS THAT SHE'D LIKE TO SAY. I'M SURE EVERYONE'S HEARD ABOUT THE PASSING OF TOM SCHWANK. HE WAS A GREAT SUPPORTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND A FORMER MEMBER OF THE LANDMARK COMMISSION. HE'S GOING TO BE DEARLY MISSED BY THE PRESERVATION COMMUNITY AND JUST THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. I'M GETTING A LITTLE EMOTIONAL TALKING ABOUT TOM. HE'S A GOOD FRIEND, GOOD COLLEAGUE. WE WILL MISS HIM VERY MUCH. SO WE THOUGHT WE WOULD JUST OPEN WITH A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR TOM, AND THEN THERE'S A CARD THAT'S BEEN PASSED AROUND FOR EVERYONE'S SIGNATURE. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'LL START OUR MEETING OFF WITH ATTENDANCE. COMMISSIONER ALLEN. PRESENT. VICE CHAIRPERSON BOURGEOIS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER CHASTAIN IS ABSENT. CHAIRPERSON CLICK. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER FITZ. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER LANGDALE. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SMITH. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER STETZEL-THOMPSON. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER THIERRY. PRESENT. EX-OFFICIO COUNCIL MEMBER SHARON LEWIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH ANY OF OUR CASES TODAY? GO AHEAD. I DO, I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM FILE 25LC-030. 1610 CHURCH STREET. OKAY. ANY OTHERS? NO? OKAY WE'LL GO ON TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING JULY 21ST. DID ANYONE SEE ANY CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE? ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED? NO. OKAY. WE'LL ACCEPT THOSE AS PRESENTED. PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY NON-AGENDA ITEMS? NO. OKAY. NEXT WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON A CONSENT AGENDA FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS CASE 25LC-030 AND 25LC-032. DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, OR WANT TO PULL EITHER ONE OF THE CASES APART TO DISCUSS IT? THE ONLY THING I CAN SEE IS THIS THE 030, IT SAYS IT'S IN SILK STOCKING IT IS NOT WE'LL MAKE THAT CORRECTION ON THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU NO. OKAY I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? NO. OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. THOSE AGAINST. OKAY. I THINK COMMISSIONER SMITH WAS ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. I'M SORRY ON THE FIRST ITEM OKAY THE CONSENT AGENDA HAS BEEN APPROVED. MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE WILL START WITH CASE 25LC-031 AT 2400 MECHANIC. ALRIGHT SO THIS IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE CLERK AND COURTS BUILDING. WE SEE A NUMBER OF THOSE OF THE AS THEY HAVE MADE CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENTS TO VARIOUS PARTS OF THE BUILDING. IN THIS CASE IT'S TO INCLUDE, INCLUDES ENCLOSURE OF EXISTING ELEVATOR DOOR OPENINGS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. THERE WERE 66 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT, 19 RETURNED. ALL OF THOSE WERE IN FAVOR. SO IN JANUARY 6TH, 2025, THE LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVED ALTERATIONS TO THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF AN EXTERIOR ELEVATOR ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THAT REQUEST WAS APPROVED WITH STAFF CONDITIONS. THE APPLICANT NOW REQUESTS TO ENCLOSE THOSE EXPOSED ELEVATOR DOORS. ANY STORY OF THE BUILDING WITH CMU AND A STUCCO VENEER. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT SUBMITTAL, THE STUCCO SERVICE WILL BE INSET ABOUT TWO INCHES BACK FROM THE HISTORIC BRICK FACADE. PLEASE NOTE THE DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE IN THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS. THE LOCATION OF THE WORK IS LOCATION C LESS VISIBLE SECONDARY WALL WHERE MORE FLEXIBILITY AND TREATMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED, ESPECIALLY FOR COMPATIBLE REPLACEMENT OR ALTERATION. PRESERVATION IS STILL PREFERRED AND WHY MORE FLEXIBILITY MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THIS LOCATION. THE DESIGN STANDARDS CALL SPECIFICALLY FOR BUILDING MATERIALS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT. IT NOTES THAT THE PREDOMINANT BUILDING MATERIALS ARE BRICK, STONE, AND STUCCO, WHILE THE AREAS IN QUESTION ARE FAR OUTSIDE THE PEDESTRIAN REALM. THE PROPOSED POST CHANGES WILL BE VISIBLE TO SOME DEGREE FROM THE PEDESTRIAN REALM DUE TO THE YOU KNOW, [00:05:06] ABRUPT CHANGES IN THE MATERIALS AND THE RESULTING INDENTS. STAFF ALSO HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PHYSICAL INTERACTION BETWEEN THE HISTORIC BRICK AND MODERN CMU. UNDER CASE 25LC-017 LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVED FACING THE NON HISTORIC GARAGE ADJACENT HERE. IN PART BECAUSE THE BRICK VENEER WAS SEPARATE FROM THE CMU WALL. SO STAFF HAS CONCERNS ABOUT IF THIS MAY ALSO HAPPEN IN THIS CASE. FINALLY, BEST PRACTICES RECOMMEND RESTORING HISTORIC STRUCTURE TO ITS EARLIEST KNOWN APPEARANCE. AND THE EARLIEST KNOWN APPEARANCE DID NOT INCLUDE ANY ELEVATOR OR RESULTING DOOR OPENINGS. SO DUE TO NON CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS, STAFF RECOMMENDS REQUESTS BE DENIED. HOWEVER, SHOULD THE LANDMARK COMMISSION FIND THE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE. WOULD BE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE. I'M SORRY. ONE AND THEN STANDARD CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH SIX. AND WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS HERE. SO HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT'S SHOWING THE WESTERN FACADE. YOU CAN SEE KIND OF HIGHLIGHTED THE AREA THAT WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM THE PEDESTRIAN REALM, THE ADJACENT STREET. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. HERE WE HAVE SOME OF THE PHOTOS THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE. AND THIS IS FROM INSIDE, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY. AND SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S THOSE THREE STORIES WHERE THE ELEVATOR USED TO BE IN THE THREE DOORS RESULTING. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND HERE WE GO. MORE PHOTOS, PROPERTIES TO THE EAST, TO THE WEST, TO THE SOUTH. AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU THANK YOU DANIEL. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. OKAY WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25LC-031. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND TALK TO US ABOUT IT? I BROUGHT JUST TO SHOW YOU WHY WE'RE WANTING TO ELIMINATE THEM ENTIRELY. THEY'RE ABOUT TO FALL APART. THEY KIND OF LOOK OKAY ON THIS SIDE, BUT WHEN YOU TAKE THEM OFF AND LOOK AT THE BACKSIDE, IT'S A TOTAL MESS. THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR GUIDELINES AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ENCOURAGE INFILL OF HISTORIC OPENINGS BE OFFSET APPROXIMATELY TWO INCHES FROM THE SURROUNDING SURFACE. THEY WANTED TO DIFFERENTIATE FROM THE ORIGINAL WALL SURFACE AND PROVIDE HINTS TO THE HISTORY OF THE BUILDING. THE FACT THE ELEVATOR SHAFT IS OVER 113 YEARS OLD, BUT NOT ORIGINAL, ALLOWS SOME INTERPRETATION OF HISTORIC. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE SHAFT OPENINGS PROVIDE A MORE HISTORIC CONTEXT THAN RETURNING TO A BLANK WALL, BUT I WILL DEFER TO COMMITTEE ON WHETHER TO RECESS THE BRICK OR TO INSTALL FLUSH WITH THE SURROUNDING BRICK SURFACE. USE A BRICK OR PLASTER FOR THE INFILL SURFACE IS AN OPTION. EITHER IS TECHNICALLY APPROPRIATE, ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. THE STAFF POINTS OUT A FAILURE OF THE BRICK VENEER OVER CMU AT THE ALLEY. THIS WAS DUE TO RUST JACKING, NOT SURFACE INCOMPATIBILITY. THIS IS A PROCESS WHERE STEEL OR CAST IRON RUST EXPANDING IN SIZE. IN THE CASE OF THE ALLEY, THE PLAIN STEEL DOOR AND WINDOW HEADERS RUSTED, EXPANDING FROM 3/8 OF AN INCH TO ALMOST AN INCH IN THICKNESS. CAPTURED BETWEEN THE STEEL HEADERS, THE BRICK HAD NOWHERE TO GO BUT TO BULGE OUTWARD AWAY FROM THE CMU. THE BRICK TIES HAD RUSTED THROUGH AS WELL. GALVESTON CODE NOW REQUIRES MINIMUM OF GALVANIZED STEEL HEADERS AND STAINLESS STEEL TIES. IF YOU DETERMINE YOU WANT TO USE ANTIQUE BRICK VERSUS PLASTER OVER THE CMU, SEPARATION FROM THE CMU IS NOT AN ISSUE. THE EXISTING BRICK ELEVATOR OPENINGS DO NOT INCORPORATE STEEL HEADERS, SO RUST JACKING WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE. ALSO, WE WOULD UTILIZE STAINLESS STEEL BRICK TIES AS REQUIRED BY CODE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ADDRESS? NO QUESTIONS? NO? OKAY THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE TODAY? YOU CAN COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN FOR US. HI WE ARE THE PRIME CONTRACTOR WORKING ON THIS PROJECT. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT ONE LITTLE BIT OF LOGISTICS ABOUT THESE OPENINGS. CURRENTLY, WE'VE HAD, WITH THE GRACE OF THIS COMMISSION BUILD TEAR DOWN THE BACK WALL AND GET IN THE SIZE EQUIPMENT WE NEEDED TO USE TO TEAR THIS [00:10:04] ELEVATOR SHAFT DOWN. WE'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING A NEW WALL BACK, AND THAT WALL IS GOING TO HAVE A GARAGE HEIGHT OF SEVEN FEET, POSSIBLY EIGHT FEET, WHICH STILL UNDERMINES THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT THAT WE NEED TO GET THE APPROPRIATE SIZED EQUIPMENT IN THERE TO MAINTAIN THIS AT A LATER DATE. AND SINCE YOU'VE SEEN THE PICTURES OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE ON THE BACK SIDE. MY FEAR IS THAT IF THIS IS DEEMED TO KEEP THESE DOORS UP THERE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THEM BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET THE EQUIPMENT IN THERE ONCE WE FINISH THE PROJECT TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THESE. AND I JUST WANT THAT TO BE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25LC-031 AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. IS MY UNDERSTANDING THE DOORS WILL COME DOWN, CATHERINE RIGHT SO THAT'S THE REQUEST IS TO REMOVE THOSE DOORS AND TO INFILL THE OPENINGS. RIGHT. BUT STAFF WASN'T SAYING TO KEEP THE DOORS RIGHT IN THE RECOMMENDATION? YES WELL, I'M NOT SURE. YEAH THE RECOMMENDATION IS JUST ABOUT THE MATERIALS, NOT ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE DOORS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE. CASE 25LC-031 WITH THE LOCATION AND LOCATION C AND IT KIND OF SHOWS THE HISTORY OF THE BUILDING. I THINK THAT'S KIND OF COOL. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IS THAT APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT? YES. OKAY. STUCCO NOT BRICK RIGHT. ANY SECONDS? NO? OKAY THAT MOTION FAILS. I DIDN'T MAKE IT, BRICK OKAY. LIKE THE ANTIQUE GROUP THEY TOOK DOWN FROM THE ELEVATOR CAN BE FILLED IN TO THE DOORS OH YEAH. CAN WE SPEAK TO THE MICROPHONE, OH, NO. IT'S A SECRET WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STUCCO AND GENUINE STUCCO? I HAVE NO IDEA MASONRY, INCLUDING BRICK, STONE AND GENUINE STUCCO, WAS TRADITIONALLY THE PRIMARY BUILDING MATERIAL IN DOWNTOWN GALVESTON. I WOULD GUESS THAT THAT MEANS, YOU KNOW, STUCCO APPLIED TO A MASONRY WALL. THERE'S SOME STUCCO LIKE MATERIALS THAT ARE REALLY LIKE A TEXTURED STYROFOAM. SO I THINK THAT'S PERHAPS WHAT'S BEING REFERRED TO THERE. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT MIC]. I'LL MAKE A MOTION JUST AS WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON IT. SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REJECT BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT, AND I'M WILLING TO AMEND IT. I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY NOW FOR THE DISCUSSION? SO I'M GATHERING FROM WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING. THEIR OVERALL CONCERN IS THEY DON'T WANT STUCCO PEOPLE HERE WANT BRICK. AND I GUESS THE DEBATE MAYBE IS HAVE IT RECESSED SOME TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE IT WAS, OR SHOW THE OPENINGS IN THE PAST? IS THAT KIND OF WHAT I'M FEELING? WELL THEY HAVE BRICK THEY TOOK DOWN THE ELEVATOR WITH SO THE STAFF IS SAYING WE COULD FILL IN THE DOORS WITH BRICK BRICK? IT WAS THEY'LL ASK YOU TO COME UP AND ASK THEM TO COME OUT THEY'LL ASK YOU TO COME UP I WOULD, YEAH. YES OKAY. WOULD YOU COME UP, PLEASE? THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WAS NOT BRICK. IT WAS A WOOD WITH A SHINGLE METAL SHINGLE SIDING. AND WE ARE COMPLETELY OPEN TO GOING BACK WITH BRICK, BUT I STILL RECOMMEND THE RECESS TO REFLECT THE HISTORY OF THE BUILDING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET THIS RIGHT IF [00:15:04] I WANT. I WANT TO ALLOW THEM TO USE THE BRICK. DO I NEED TO CHANGE MY MOTION? BECAUSE IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE IT GOES WITH. OKAY. RIGHT YEAH SO YOUR MOTION IS FOR DENIAL, WHICH IS WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING. SO IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION, IT WOULD BE APPROVAL WITH A CONDITION. AND THEN YOU WOULD SPECIFY WHAT THE CONDITION IS. OKAY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A NEW MOTION FOR 25LC-031 FOR THE APPLICANT CAN USE BRICK AND RECESS SO THE HISTORY OF IT. I'LL SECOND OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION HERE? NO? OKAY WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? ANYBODY AGAINST? OKAY. NEXT WE HAVE. 25LC-033 2928 AVENUE K. A REQUEST FOR A DESIGNATION AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK. OKAY THIS IS A REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK. 33 PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT. ONE RETURNED THAT ONE IN FAVOR. THIS HOUSE IS THE JOSEPH AND ELIZABETH. I'M NOT SURE HOW TO PRONOUNCE THAT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY GUESSES? TREACCAR. WHAT DO YOU SAY? I THINK THEY CALLED IT THE TREACCAR HOUSE ON THE HISTORIC HOME STORE. THANK YOU DANIEL. THE TREACCAR HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1889. ONE OF THE MOST DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF THIS TWO-STORY SIDE HALL TOWNHOUSE IS THE DOUBLE GALLERY ON THE MAIN FACADE, TRIMMED WITH QUEEN ANNE SUNBURST BRACKETS. TREACCAR HOW DO YOU SAY, DANIEL? [LAUGHTER] TREACCAR. TREACCAR, TREACCAR OKAY. WHO ACRES THE TREES. ACRES THE TREES TREACCAR WAS BORN IN GALVESTON TO PRUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS AND LEARNED THE CARPENTRY TRADE FROM HIS OLDER BROTHER THEODORE, AND BY 1875 TREACCAR WAS EMPLOYED BY THE CARPENTRY SHOP AT GALVESTON-HOUSTON AND HENDERSON RAILROADS, WITH THE VERNACULAR STYLE OF THE TREE HOUSE EXHIBITS SKILLS PASSED DOWN TO NEW GENERATIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY BROUGHT TO THE UNITED STATES BY EARLY IMMIGRANT CRAFTSMEN. THE HOUSE WAS OWNED AT A POINT BY THE GALVESTON HISTORICAL FOUNDATION, AND WAS JUST FEATURED ON THE LAST HOME STORE, WHERE DANIEL LEARNED HOW TO SAY THE NAME. THE PROPERTIES OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES PROGRAM. THE OTHER REVIEWS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HEAR THIS REQUEST AT THEIR MEETING TOMORROW. CITY COUNCIL HAS A FINAL DECISION REGARDING REQUESTS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND WILL BE HEARD AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 28TH. AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT. THANK YOU CATHERINE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SO I WAS A DOCENT AND I WAS SAYING TREACCAR APPARENTLY I WAS WRONG [LAUGHTER]. WHO REALLY KNOWS? NO QUESTIONS. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE 25LC-033 THE APPLICANT HERE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP AND TELL US ABOUT THE PROPERTY? I DON'T OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT? NO. OKAY. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION. GO AHEAD I'LL SECOND NO? OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THE MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THOSE AGAINST? NONE. OKAY THAT PASSES. THAT'S IT. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE AGENDA FOR OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS MONDAY THE 18TH, AUGUST 18TH? NO? OKAY. IT'S 4:19 THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.