Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landmark Commission approves rebuilding nonhistoric rear addition at 1719 Winnie
Summary
The Galveston Landmark Commission on May 19 approved a certificate of appropriateness to rebuild a failing rear addition at 1719 Winnie, allowing the owner to raise the addition six inches to align finished floors and reuse approved windows and doors with conditions in the staff report.
The Galveston Landmark Commission on May 19 approved a certificate of appropriateness allowing the owner of 1719 Winnie to demolish and rebuild a nonhistoric rear addition that staff said is causing structural movement in the main house.
Staff told commissioners the addition dates to the 1950s with an expansion around 1989 and sits roughly six inches below the main house floor, producing differential movement that is damaging the primary structure. Daniel, a city staff member presenting the case, said the owner is proposing to rebuild the rear addition, raise it six inches so finished floors align, reuse existing doors and windows (including windows approved under case 20LC053), install milled-wood trim and a low-pitched composite roof, and otherwise match the staff-reviewed design. Staff found the request conforms to the design standards for historic properties and recommended approval with the standard conditions listed in the staff report.
Applicant Marcia Lutz, who lives at 1719 Winnie, told the commission the foundation is in poor condition and that her contractor advised rebuilding rather than attempting extensive repairs: "Those pictures show how poor the foundation is, which drove this project to start with," Lutz said, adding that the addition had been merely abutted to the main house and was not built as a permanent, integrated structure.
Chairperson Click moved to approve case 25LC013 per staff recommendation; Vice Chairperson Bujold seconded. The commission voted in favor and the motion passed. The meeting record does not give a roll-call tally.
Staff noted that if a building permit had been submitted before Landmark review, the permit process is paused until the commission’s review is resolved; once the commission acted, the applicant may proceed with permitting under the stated conditions.
The approval included the specific conditions in the staff report (standard conditions 2 through 6 were cited by staff). No members of the public other than the applicant spoke on the case at the hearing.
