Historic and Design Review Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. Time is now 3 p.m. I'd like to call to order this historic design review commission meeting for Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026. May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Present.

Savino. Here. Velazquez. Here. Galloway. Muzuka.

Here.

Guivada. Grubb. Travieso.

Here.

Holland. Fetzer. Here. And Gibbs. Here. We have a quorum.

Thank you. May I have translation services, please?

Good afternoon, everyone. Muchas gracias. Thank you so much.

Thank you. The historic design review commission is an advisory board appointed by the city council. I am Jay Maurice Gibbs chairman and the vice chair is Jeffrey Fetzer. It is the function of the commission to advise the city manager and all relevant city departments concerning all applications for permits for properties in historic districts for landmarks on city property and a river improvement overlay and for demolitions and considering whether to recommend approval or disapproval. of an application for certificate of appropriateness, the commission shall be guided by the city's unified development code and design guidelines and standards that have been adopted by city council and appeal of a decision by administrative official can be filed in accordance with the city's unified development code. If anyone present wishes to speak in favor or in opposition to any item on today's agenda, please sign up on the public comment sheet. It is not necessary to sign up if you are the owner of or representative for a project on the agenda. You will be called on as the case is called. Case representatives will be given no more than 15 minutes to present their case with an additional two minutes to respond to public comments. Speakers for or opposed to a case will be limited to two minutes each. Speakers may also sign up to yield their two minutes to another speaker who is signed up. Anyone who is yielding their time must be present at the time the speaker is called upon. Speakers will be called upon in the order in which they are signed up. Following public testimony, any commissioner may call upon any speaker to respond to further questions. Approval by the commission does not take the place of any type of permit. Permits must be obtained for all work. Certificates of appropriateness for work approved by the commission will be emailed to you within 10 days. No work of any type is to be started without obtaining the appropriate city permits after a certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the Office of Historic Preservation. At this time, please silence your cell phones.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for being here. Before we get started, I do have a quick announcement. I just want to highlight our upcoming home repair fair, which is next Saturday, September 12th. This is officially, I think, our biggest fair ever with over 57 exhibitors. So that'll be contractors, design professionals, and other experts, city services. For anybody that has a house, has an old house, and is interested in learning how to maintain and repair or improve their property, is welcome to attend. This is a free event at Wonderland of the Americas that Saturday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. At this point, we're going to do action on meeting minutes from our previous meeting, August 19th.

Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the meeting minutes for August 19th, 2026. Second.

It's been moved and properly seconded. Is there any further discussion? May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Savino. Aye. Velazquez.

Aye.

Mazuka. Aye. Guevara.

Aye.

Traviaso.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs. Aye. Motion carries.

Motion carries. Thank you. At this point, if you want to draw your attention to the screen, we have nine items on today's consent agenda. Please check your packets for letters and messages for a couple of those items. We do have in-person speakers for item number five that I will call up at this time. It's Daniel, and I'll have to get your last name at the podium. You should have four minutes. Paula is also here and has yielded her time. If you want to come up to the podium, you can give your comments at this time. Daniel, last name begins with an M. Yeah.

mind singer who who's asking sir yeah if you just want to state your name and address and then you can give your comments you'll have four minutes thank you my name is my name is daniel meinsinger i live at 235 yellowstone it's a good afternoon again my name is daniel meinsinger and we've lived in the area since 1963 and i appreciate the opportunity to speak today first i'd like to say that we are against this project for several reasons and that is project number five on 421 roosevelt I'd like to list them and we'll speak to them as the items allow and time allows it. The first one is that there used to be some historic buildings that were on this property. These buildings on the site were built somewhere between 1938 and 1940. The question that I have is how were they allowed to be torn down? We've never received any notices about the buildings about being demolished and why they were torn down with or without approval. That's just a general question that I don't have an answer to. The other question is heights on the buildings. They're recommending three-story and four-story buildings. There are currently no three-story buildings in the area except for the AT&T building on Presa and Grove, the old CPS building, the power plant on Mission Road, and of course the Lone Star Brewery. Allowing tall buildings is going to be very difficult for the area because what's going to happen is other people are going to want to build and they're encouraged to build bigger properties higher and higher and higher, which blocks the view for many people from our downtown skyline. Everybody knows World's Fair 68, the tower was built, so a lot of people live downtown because they're proud of their area, proud of their heritage. Parking, traffic, via line makes the streets a little bit smaller. There's a lot of apartments in the area already. The St. John on Michelin Mission with over 200 apartments. No street additions were added. No stoplights were added. There's been nothing from the city to help the traffic control there. 410 Pro Band is currently being built right there by the tracks where the old paper company used to be. There's got to be around 400 or 500 apartments. One exit to the street, just one. The other one is on Proband Street. 423 Blue Star has a few more 100 apartments as well. 111 Proband has over 100 flats and apartments as well. Any traffic studies have been done in the area? People don't know about it. When you look at what they're trying to propose on Mission Road, I don't know how many people remember, but the old Mission Road used to go through Roosevelt Park. Somebody had the great idea. Sorry if you're in the room. I don't think so. But they took Mission Road and curved it around. So on that curve, every couple of weeks there's an accident. Somebody goes through the fence because it's a very dangerous section. One of the things is that they're proposing is as an exit to the driveway. where all the accidents are happening. According to the Express and News, San Antonio currently has 48% turnover rate when it comes to apartments. So many apartments in the area, and nothing's being added except the Via Green line that is taking driving lanes from cars. I understand there's a lot of people in support for it, but if you go look at the corner of Carol Florida Carolina and Roosevelt Street the street has gotten extremely small at the intersection So there used to be three four lanes there now. There's going to be two lanes So we're going to continue to add more and more cars, and that's going to be another problem That's the only street excuse me and the lone star street expansion currently that's the only one that we know of in the area that should take place in 2027. then you add all the coal trains i don't know if anybody's ever stopped by the coal train the coal train comes through a couple times a week and it circles all through downtown san antonio goes all through florida carolina street and goes all the way out to calaveras lake to dump well guess what everybody's speeding down the side streets to make sure they pass the trains because there's nowhere to go another area of contention is the windows If I want to build a house from scratch, I'm probably okay. But if I live in the historic era, which I do, HDRC says you must have wooden pane windows, and they must be wooden pane, and they must be up to standards from what we say. Now, I can get the double pane just to make sure they're energy efficient based on federal rules, but based on this right now, the recommendation was that we will allow them to put aluminum windows in there. Well, if they're historic, why are the rules different? Construction versus not. Here's a big bone of contention, archaeology. Sorry, I know my time's running. This is a huge one. On your own recommendations, you state there's need to follow the Texas Antiquities Code. Here's my question. How can they follow the code when they've been doing site work for the past few years to dig up the entire back of the property and build a holding pond with all the soil and everything that they've done? Nobody's done anything with the antiquities. What happened to all the archaeology? There's a historic site right on the corner by the Conservation Society. I understand my time ran out. But there's been nothing to do with the antiquities of that. So just, again, respect for the neighborhood. The lot looks horrible now. If they really care about what's going on in the neighborhood, then we wouldn't have to have the city put notices on their property all the time on why the property looks like bad. I'll use that word. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. So we have no other public comments on consent items.

Thank you. Since we had no other in-person speakers, um, do any commissions wish to pull any items from today's consent agenda?

Mr. Chair, I'd like to pull item number five.

I have a number five. Any other items? Seven. I am seven. Any other items?

Okay. Mr.

Chair? I'm sorry, go ahead, sir. Oh, should we make a motion? Oh, not yet, sir.

One moment. I'll be recusing myself from the balance of the consent agenda. Thank you, sir.

Let the record reflect that Vice Chair Fester has left the room. Okay, good, sir.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the balance of the consent agenda that is without five and seven, but all items with staff stipulations. Second.

It's been moved and properly seconded. Is there any further discussion? May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon? Aye. Savino? Aye. Velazquez? Aye. Mazzucco?

Aye.

Guevara?

Aye.

JVSO?

Aye.

Holland?

Aye.

And Gibbs?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries. Thank you. If you're on the consent agenda and your address is 436 West Craig. 115 Main Plaza, 427 South Presa, 111 Azleda, 431 Broadway, 4214 Briar Glen, and 502 Kendall. Your case has been approved and you do not need to stay for the remainder of this hearing. If you have any questions, please contact a member of staff. Your certificate of appropriateness or commission action letter will be prepared and emailed to you within 10 days. Commissioners, I'll pull up item number five now. The applicant, Michael Clancy, is here in person.

All right, Mr. Clancy, please introduce yourself for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Michael Clancy. I'm with Alamo Architects.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Savino.

Yes. I have some questions for both you guys, applicant, as well as for staff. There is a letter in our files from the Conservation Society that expressed a couple of concerns, and so also a neighbor who has attended. The first item that the neighbor brought up was a historic... Historic structures from 1938, 1940. And can somebody, staff, tell me about what those were and what the process was to remove them?

Yeah, we had a request in 2020 for a historic assessment. So there was actually an H2 or C item from that time to review the demolitions as not contributing, and that was approved. So a demolition permit was issued sometime after that.

Okay, and then there's the concern about the traffic, increased traffic whenever we have mixed use or multifamily. Of course, we're going to have increased traffic nowadays. It's not just 9 to 5, but it's around the clock because people have varied schedules nowadays. Was this site required to undergo a traffic study for either Roosevelt frontage or Mission?

The TIA is not required for this site.

It is not?

It is not.

And why is it not required?

It's IDZ.

It's an IDZ. Yeah. And that precludes it from.

Right. The IDZ assumes that we are in a tied-in location, which we are, being adjacent to the green line that's under construction now.

Okay. Windows. Would you like to comment on the staff? Can staff comment on the windows and explain how the window policy works?

Sure. The window policy specifically states that there's no prohibition on a specific material. So if the applicant can find a window, whether it be wood, clad wood, aluminum, even vinyl, that meets the standards, that they're able to recess within walls, that they're able to trim out consistently or similarly to a historic profile, they're able to provide it in a specific color. then it complies with staff standards. And the applicants provided a detail of how they plan to accomplish that.

And that standard also includes the installation with the setback from the building phase. So for new construction, residential or commercial, as long as the dimensions of the material comply, it would be conforming? Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

Okay, and let's see, the Conservation Society had a comment about, let me take a look, hold on, let me find it. They had a concern about the height and design, so they're talking about aesthetics also, which we don't have purview over, but the height and materials as it relates to industrial rather than a Why are you choosing, this is a question for the applicant, why are you choosing the industrial style or materials? Sure. This multi-family residential.

Yeah.

Sir, sir, sir, before you speak, I need you to introduce yourself, please.

Sorry, Jim Bailey, Alamo Architects.

Thank you, sir. Go ahead.

Ed, will you pull up the diagram that we generated that shows the current and historic uses of surrounding properties? So you can see the site outlined with the little note next to it that says Mill possibly predates historic Keturi Edmonds House. So it was an industrial use before it was a residential use. Everything that you see in red is either currently or recently in industrial use, including, as the speaker mentioned, the old CPS power plant, which is across the street. We actually pulled up the Eteri Edmonds website and the hero shot of the Eteri Edmonds house has the CPS building behind it. So one thing that's for sure is from the place that that photo was taken, you can't even see this development. So we felt, given the prevalence of industrial uses along the site, we're working on a Lone Star project as well. And so we've done a lot of study of both Lone Star and how it accreted over the years as their, needs grew spanning in style from industrial kind of what what architectural embellishment there is on the development spanning from mission style up through Bauhaus early Bauhaus which which we see examples of all up and down Roosevelt in commercial buildings and old industrial buildings And so given the prevalence of structures that were built during that period and given our visual relation to those structures, we thought it a good fit. Okay.

I will yield more of my time for other commissioners, but I do have additional questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Savino. Other questions for this applicant?

All right. Yes, question. You're asking for conceptual approval, which means further development of the design, the site and everything. Would you be amenable to including a design review committee meeting to review your development prior to coming back for final? Oh, for sure. Yeah. I'm just looking at drawing. I know it's conceptual and not everything's worked out, but drawing 32, Edwards? You have a lot of detail on the corner to the left, and as you progress to the right, there's insets and balconies and that. And then boom, there's a big blank piece of wall between two sets of balconies. So hopefully as you develop this plan, you'll look at all the parts of the facades and how they impact the neighborhood.

Absolutely. You know, some of that, and this is just, we're in the very beginning, but some of that, even in these initial stages, is intentional because all of these structures that we're referencing that exist on the sites in the previous diagram are very much, and Mission Style and the Bauhaus examples and commercial structures, are very much about long sort of blank walls with very little decoration, often some sort of simple cornice treatment or perhaps breaking up of the massing horizontally with vertical elements. So we very much intend to study all of those Potential interventions as we move into further phases of design and yes Commissioner we'd be happy to meet with the design review Commission committee prior to coming back for final approval

Thank you. Commissioner Savino, he'll to you for your further questions.

Okay, yes. Something brought up by both the society and the neighbor is about the archaeological work and the site work that's been going on. Was there any COA for the previous site work that you all did near the retention pond?

We've only recently been retained to work on the project. Okay. Is there some environmental work?

Sure. Hi, I'm David Morin. I'm a partner in 421 Roosevelt LLC, which is the project partner for the land. The owner of the property in 2024 did get a demolition permit and a certificate of appropriateness to demolish, I think there were some uniform linen commercial buildings that were on the site. And he did have to do an extensive archaeology study to make sure, and I think archaeological monitoring to make sure that no artifacts were impaired.

Okay. Can you confirm that, Corey?

I don't have it in front of me, but give me a minute. I can.

Because I noticed the work going on probably more than a year ago and asked, and there was nothing on file at the time, 2025, so that's why I'm asking.

So there was no archaeological report on the file?

There was nothing in the explorer map from OHP, and you responded also that there was nothing and that you all would look into it.

Or site work? Because demolitions were issued.

Actively undergoing a lot of site work, yes.

I'll look into it.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. You have questions, sir?

No, I was going to make a motion. Please, sir. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion for conceptual approval at this time with staff stipulations and requesting the design review session.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and properly seconded this session. Okay, sir.

Well, Mr. Chair, the... The project, it seems to be well thought out. The design seems appropriate. I personally, with the experience and the environment there, seem to think that four stories is excessive. Even if that meant that three stories would allow for a grander experience on the three, but it just seems that four in that environment is so close to a public pool. is very, very close. Now, I can see how there's a contradiction, say, for instance, at San Pedro Pool, where there's a 22-story building right about. But historically, very well shaded, very well covered by the tree canopies around the area. The area's scale, even with the, Deco and I worked in the Kila Salmon for many years right down the street. Very familiar with the area. It just seems that the scale is not a four story scale environment. And what would be relegated to that would be across the river or, of course, the CPS building, which was never a residential building. So outside of that, I want to be very supportive of what appears to be appropriate. I mean, the environments are changing. That area is a blank slate. The use of materials seem appropriate, and the design seems like something that might have been there. It seems dense, but that could just be my lack of attention to what the size of that lot really is. But I just would reiterate that the only thing concerning to me would be that height, particularly with respect to the swimming pool.

Commissioner Velasquez, would you consider amending your motion to limit the height?

Well, I would be more supportive of an alternate motion or a substitute motion because I'm not necessarily sure personally what it is that is not appropriate. I just have serious questions, and I think within the conceptual aspect, from here to there, I don't know that conceptual is approving the amount of floors. I'm looking at it as the massing, the general design, the flow, but I do, I mean, I'm just not sure that I... feel convicted to the limitation. See, from my standpoint, the height is allowing this intrusion into the pool, but it's also creating this density. But I don't know what the numbers of their project are. I don't know what it takes to pencil it out. But I am supportive of that idea, but I just don't feel like I'm as committed to that concern. This is the first that really we're seeing publicly in this project.

All right. Would the second like to comment?

Sure. Yeah. Just under conceptual approval on this, for me personally, I don't see any reason to stand in the way of a conceptual approval. There's going to be plenty of opportunities, especially with the stipulation on the motion to have a DRC. You guys are going to get a lot of feedback at that point and work through, hopefully work through, some of these questions and these challenges. And I just really, to fellow Commissioner's point, I don't want to put any stipulations on you because you guys have some great design sometimes. So I'd like to see what you come back with first. Thank you.

One moment, sir. And could the Commissioner like to comment?

I'm wondering if, knowing that conceptual approval is not binding, it's an opportunity to help you all move forward and be open to other changes. But I know what you're saying about limiting the height and sacrifice of the density. and looking at the layout of this there are ways that perhaps along important priority edges whether it's roosevelt and admission that the height is lowered and the height is allowed to exist deeper into the lot that might be a solution a solution that could be worked out or something we could look at at a drc my concern is that yes this works so well If it were on the other side of the river, both aesthetically, layout-wise, it would be perfect on the other side of the river. This side of the river, the character is very modest. It's very residential. And of those commercial buildings, yes, the CPS plant is tall. But I'm looking at those buildings along... The buildings along Roosevelt that you've selected as commercial and industrial. Yes, they are, but none of them are. Some are two stories. None are three stories. So working within the actual context of your historic area, your transit area, and geographic area, there is nothing that is quite that tall or that industrial looking. So my concern is the character. And the massing is part of that character. Yeah.

Yes. Are you addressing a question specifically?

It's a comment. It's part of my comment and discussion. Thank you. But you wanted to speak and say something to that.

Yes, ma'am. So right now, so when we're in Discussion, you know, this is for us to, you know, pretty much comment back and forth. So unless we have a question specifically to you, things of nature, then, you know, we'll ask you to respond. Otherwise, once we're done with this discussion, I'll give you an opportunity to comment and then be able to say what you need to say.

So I'll just say in closing. Should this conceptual approval move forward, I look forward with working with you all on other alternatives or tweaks to be a better fit for the immediate neighborhood.

Thank you. Commissioner Charyasso?

Yes, thank you, Commissioner. Obviously, we were discussing height of the building. My question is the lighting, the external lighting. What is your plans to how to light the external part of the complex?

Michael, why don't you take that one? We're not quite there yet.

Yeah, I was going to say at this point, we don't know. But, of course, we would want to be respectful to context and requirements that are necessary to get this project through.

And, Commissioner, if you care to add a stipulation, we would welcome that to further study and come back at the... Well, I was piggybacking on Commissioner Scavino's comment about the people that live in that area are very sensitive to noise, lighting, external lighting, and so forth. So that was the essence of my question to you. But, yeah, I think that would be an area that if you could clarify what your plans are once you have a formal plan, I think that would be very beneficial for your case.

Thank you.

Other comments?

Yes. Edward or Corey, what is the height limit in Rio 4?

It's seven stories or 84 feet. Or I should say seven stories and 84 feet. Okay.

Thank you. I guess I would encourage you, based on comments from the neighbor who spoke and the conservation society as well as the commission here, if you get conceptual approval as you further develop it, look at your heights. whether you can modulate that across the site rather than, you know, four stories everywhere or what have you. I know you've got four stories on the north and three stories on the south, but study your... your ROI and the impact to the neighborhood as well and come back with some thoughtful recommendations. Thank you.

yeah so I mean the performa is what it is and we're not seven stories and eight stories were a mix of three and four stories and that's what it's going to take to make the project work we have some flexibility in moving things around the site but given its constrained nature and the need to provide adequate fire protection for the benefits of the residents who will be living there in the neighborhood as a whole we're somewhat limited in the places that we can put buildings further old abandoned street was it where Grove used to be has a bunch of public utilities running right down the middle of it and that's in the middle of the site we we cannot put a building over that so so we're somewhat limited I will say to Commissioner Velasquez is insightful comments you know one of the things we've done very successfully and we've done this in a number of projects is is visually modulate the scale of the building through architectural treatments, whether that's through a slight setback on upper levels and treatment of roofs so that the building begins to not appear as massive as it is. I discussed some of those ideas regarding the breaking up of vertical massing or at the cornice line but we've done that successfully in several places there's certain certainly things we can do to break up the massing and reduce the perceived scale of the building with micro adjustments perhaps setting things 10 feet back or 15 feet back and planning more landscape so i i hear you commissioners um and we will definitely study that in the in the next round mr chair if i could just um please sir go ahead

I want to just tell you that I'm always very afraid of telling an architect anything because we don't want to cause something that makes your horse a zebra. I completely understand that we have to be able to communicate in a way that is not asking you to do something that changes the nature of what you've achieved. It is sensitive. I would think that the most valuable input would be to imagine yourself, I don't know, an eight year old in the swimming pool. And try to ask yourself, how can this look intentional to that eight year old? And how can the mother feel that the 8-year-old is not being exploited by whoever is looking into that pool? Because the people have enjoyed the swimming pool for many, many, many years. It's a picnic park. I did that when I was a kid. yeah yeah so you know it's a it's a it's a staple um so when you mentioned modulating and and commissioner fetzer as well i think that's the right the right language within the context of your of your creativity um because because it it can always also be looked at perhaps it would be easier if there wasn't so much building, period, right? If it was eight houses, then it would be perfect, right? In that context. But for this, that is... I mean, I think we can see the energy, the life that a complex like this can bring to an environment that perhaps has seen itself dying off because purely the lack of... of participation from residents in the area, right, new residents. So just that.

You know, we weren't asked about our conversations with the neighborhood over time or the things we were.

Jim, can you use the mic, please?

Come closer to the mic, sir.

Oh, yeah, yeah. I wonder if we just might take a brief moment and have David talk about all the conversations we've had with the neighborhood and all of the improvements that,

considering either partnering with the city or partnering other developed or the or the roosevelt neighborhood park neighborhood association to achieve on the site yes uh so we had we had two meetings with the neighborhood association the roosevelt park neighborhood association and the first meeting was with the president and i believe the treasurer at their house and we kind of went over what the neighborhood wanted to see they're very excited about new development and Then we had a meeting with the broader neighborhood. There were 30 people in attendance. It was a really fun event. We showed them our exact site plan. It's the exact same layout we have now. They haven't seen the design per se, but they saw the density, the massing, the four stories along Roosevelt and the three stories along Mission Road. And they were in support of the project, and they supported the northern half to be actually rezoned to TOD MX6, which allows six stories. We're not going for that. We're going for four stories. But they're very in support, and I have a letter from them. I'd love to provide that to you guys as well when you do the design review.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Chair, can I just add one thing? Please, sir. So motions for conceptual approval, I heard a few commissioners say it's just conceptual, things can change. I hear different takes on the height. And so I just, I would encourage you, like if there is an expectation through this motion that the height be lowered, that that be included, because what we don't want to do is for them to do design development and come back and they don't have a majority vote for the level of density that they're after. So it's an important thing to include even at the conceptual stage. And if there is an appetite to include that stipulation in the motion, then I would also recommend that you develop findings that provide that rationale. Commissioner Savino?

Yes, I'll need some assistance in determining whether this is an amended motion or an alternate motion. I would like to make one of the stipulations to limit the height to the equivalent of three stories on this project. That would be my amended motion to limit somewhere to limit the height Limit the height of this project to no more than three stories on the north face and The south face of the project of the property lines Thank you, sir a second Motion dies for lack of a second

um commissioner velasquez yes um i know you mentioned that you weren't um you didn't want to really move on that um are you considering are you would you consider changing your motion to limit to the three stories or um are you want to leave your motion as it stands sir

Well, I'd like to leave the motion as it stands, but I'd like to just say I have an incredible amount of respect for Commissioner Savino's thoughtfulness and her sensitivity to design. But I did hear a couple of words that I think mean quite a bit from the architects and from Commissioner Fetzer, particularly with respect to I think that there's potentially a commitment to modulating or to moving in or creating spaces that help some kind of a cascade effect, perhaps just studying a little deeper the impact of people looking down from the fourth floor into a public environment. I have confidence that trust is a really bad word, right? But I have confidence that that you'd give it your best effort. But I don't want to say that I trust that you would because I don't trust businessmen, right? But I have confidence that perhaps you will see the benefit of the design overall. to taking it a step further and within the context of a design review that perhaps we can have a conversation about what that would mean intentionally cross my fingers for the neighborhood so I it isn't in disagreement with Commissioner Savino it's just that I haven't really had enough time to have a conviction about not and changing that motion would be an ultimate limitation and perhaps I'm wrong.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. All right, gentlemen. Um, so great, great call for a vote, but I just want to, um, comment and say that when it comes to your project and I agree, you know, you've done some great work in the past and this looks like a great project as well, but you mentioned you have some support from community and things of nature. Um, One of the things that we deal with a lot here at this commission is how the neighborhood, how the neighbors feel about new development in their area and things of nature. I would just encourage you to have a design and have a project that flows well community and that the community as a whole you're not gonna please everybody but you know they can be happy with okay so I'll just ask that you consider that not designing for you that's not our job here you know but just ask that you consider you know the neighborhood as a whole all right thank you everyone may have a roll call please Mammon all right Savino nay Velazquez aye Mazzucca aye

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Hi, my name is Tu Nguyen. I'm the City of San Antonio's Department of Arts and Culture Public Art Project Manager with the Department of Arts and Culture.

Appreciate you. Thank you. Commissioner Mazzucca?

Sure. I had more of a question about the request that was given to us to select a place for a piece of art, public art. And I'd be more than happy to do that if I could see the artwork. But without seeing the artwork, it's nearly, I would think it's impossible to do that because because sighting is such an important thing for a piece of art. You need sight lines, you need distant sight lines. So I trust the artist knows, he or she knows where they're gonna put it. We're given three choices or three different locations. I think it's three or four. And so it's just, we're required to trust the artist, which I do, but to be asking us to approve of a location for it, I would never venture to do that without seeing the artwork. So that's my only, I felt very odd with this request.

I can respond to that. I mean, and you'll remember going back up to the kite on Commerce Street, this is kind of what started this, is we want to make sure that the purview that this commission has is strictly kind of the physical impacts to the project and not the subject matter of the artwork itself. That goes to the public art board. And so we don't want there to be confusion about which body does what. And so you guys don't normally see public art. That goes to the public art board. But we do want this to be a step in the process as a recommendation to the public art board because it is a historic property. I know it is hard to understand the overall impacts of something when you don't know the scale and materials and that sort of thing, but we do want to provide some context about location because there is going to be physical impacts with digging, and here in this park it's going to impact archaeological requirements.

I'm certainly in favor of all the public art that we can get. And, you know, the artwork on Commerce Street, I was vehemently against it, but I have come to love the artwork. I mean, I took offense because of where it was placed. I've since changed my mind.

And I did want to confirm that it is just one location that we're looking at. The photos in this slide are just different angles, so apologies for the confusion. And so if you take a look at the red square in the photo below the Google Maps larger photo, then that's the one location that we're focusing on and that the artist will be focusing on as well. just a comment um thank you for the clarification i had the same thought what what's aware but thank you yes and i did also want to add that you know understanding the historical significance and that this is san antonio's park it's not just you know district one's park and We will be working closely with the Friends of, the San Pedro Springs Park Conservancy, the neighboring neighborhood associations there to participate in the public art process. And we're actually going to host a public meeting for this project in particular where you would be able to see the proposals We will be working with artists to submit proposals for this project in particular, and I can follow up with that information for you all if you'd like to participate.

Thank you.

Other questions for this applicant? Comments for the staff? Corey, mainly. Corey, from the way that you presented the the circumstance. It seems that we're beginning something that is not necessarily traditional to the purview of the HDRC. So whatever it is that we do, it's going to set something in motion, a protocol.

We've been handling it this way for a few years now. You've had probably, I don't know, half a dozen projects that have come through with the same level of documentation for a COA.

Okay, but now you said that we wanted to do this and the language that you used is a little different than that.

Yeah, I was just explaining why it's presented this way and not after the conceptual artwork has been developed. And so this is on the front end of the project.

Well, the way that I understood what you said first is that clearly we wouldn't have jurisdiction or purview over the end product because that's going to go through a public art process. And you can only imagine that there would be a process that would end coming to the ACRC, and the ACRC could say, I don't like it, which ain't going to happen, right? So that would mean that then... The purview of the HDRC would be the location of something.

Physical impacts to our resource.

Okay, but now, it would seem that it would be more appropriate for it to come to us without purview over the thing itself. But the location of the thing, even if it's 12 inches from here to there. Because it doesn't seem proper that it would just come to us as a location. And let's just say that it came to us and it was two feet from a tree. It would make sense that the HDRC would say that's an inappropriate location. But if it was a turtle, it might be an appropriate location. And if it was a Tower of Life building, then that would be an inappropriate location, right? So it would seem that it's not appropriate for it to come as a placeholder. It would be more appropriate for it to come as a thing to go in a particular location, in which case it would make sense that we would be able to say it shouldn't go there. You need to present other locations where it would go. Because this doesn't make any sense that we would be, even if we've done it in the past, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense that we would just be looking at a colored area and saying whatever it is that you do goes there.

I think it's easy to come back to that conclusion in this example because it's very open-ended. I think there's going to be other cases where it's on historic property where you're going to know for sure something shouldn't be installed there, like on historic materials. really high level, the question to you today is this an impact to historic resources? And I agree, more context is always better, but to your point about the turtle being close to a tree or not, that gets into the content of the art, and I just want to be very clear about which board is reviewing what component of the request.

No, yes, but it wouldn't be an approval as to whether or not it should be a miniature Tower of Life next to a tree or not. It would just be, or whether it should be a Tower of Life building, it would just be whether or not it's appropriate next to the tree, in which case the tree would be in our purview. So it's not to say that this shouldn't come here. It just seems that it shouldn't come here unless we're looking at the thing and where it goes. Because otherwise, we don't know what we're doing. We're just looking at a blank piece of, at a square of an abstract that... Go ahead, Jim. What's inappropriate? What would be inappropriate about an abstract square of nothing going anywhere? What's inappropriate about that? Nothing. Or it's inappropriate. It either is or it isn't. So it's kind of, what's inappropriate is asking us to say yes to something that is not even anything. That's inappropriate.

And hello, everyone. My name is Kimberly Mireles. I manage the public art program with the Department of Arts and Culture. So just to give you more idea on our process, we go through reviews where, again, from a design perspective, we look at that. Our public art committee and our San Antonio Arts Commission, they look at that, the appropriateness for the space. And as two mentioned with this community engagement that we're doing, we're going to show the public the six proposals that we're getting. And we're asking them to judge it on the appropriateness for San Pedro Springs Park. And a lot of that is going to be included in terms of how close it is to the resources. We've told the artist that they have to work within the trees, the sidewalks, everything that's there. And then we will have that in terms of design, give feedback to them to look at. We're working with our colleagues in the OHP office, but also parks, capital delivery, environmental development services, all those folks.

Well, no, the only question, it's more like a process question to even your process. It's like, what if you got a majority vote here that said no? What would you do?

We would probably develop it further and come back with more information.

That's all I'm saying because right now it doesn't seem like it's...

So I'll say this. This kind of path is what, you know, the two departments work together and this is what we came up with because there are so many steps in the process. If we think it makes more sense to wait until further when there's a few more considerations, we can certainly talk about what that looks like. I just want to be very, very clear this is not the public art board, okay?

And I understand that, just so I'm clear, too, I'm no way, you want to give the idea that our purview in any way, shape, or form would have anything to do with the art itself.

Right. And like Corey mentioned, we could come back and say, here's exactly where it's going to be. Here's the concrete or sidewalk or ADA paths that the artist is proposing. Here's the maximum height. And share that with you guys once we have, go through the process.

And I'm hearing what you're saying, Corey. I understand what you're saying, Commissioner Velasquez, and I definitely hear what you're saying. And I think that – and I hope we all understand each other, but I think what my fellow commissioner is basically stating is that, you know, as a whole, we're being asked to – you know, provide, basically vote on something that we don't really have a clear context on everything here. And the fact that when Corey was asked a question, but if we vote on it and it didn't pass, what will happen? You'll come back with more information. That's pretty much what we're asking for because it just doesn't, seems incomplete at this point or premature. So am I hitting you right on the head, sir?

Well, it just is. You would remove the controversy, potentially, potential controversy, If it only came to us once, it was this is the deal and this is where we propose that it goes. Because if you looked at it artistically, I've spent a lot of time in the arts. If you look at it artistically and you use an NDO language, non-discriminatory language, like a person, doesn't matter what color the person is, doesn't matter what their race, nationality is, the art, doesn't matter what the art is, how tall it is, how short it is, but it may have a context into is it blocking something? that perhaps the artist says, no, I wanted to block it because I want them to see me. I don't want them to see that. We would say, well, yeah, you're asking for too much because that thing has been here for 300 years. But we got to know what it is. So if we're told that the art itself is not in our jurisdiction, we would understand that it's not in our jurisdiction. But that in no way should limit that you're asking us to do something very thoughtful And in order for us to do our due diligence, we have to be empowered to do our due diligence. Otherwise, we're just rubber stamping, and that's not appropriate. And that's it. I'm sorry, sir. Vice Chair Fetzer.

Yes. Question, I guess, for the applicant. Has the RFP been issued and have the artists created their conceptual designs? Yes.

The RFP has been issued. They have not submitted the designs yet. The deadline is in October.

Okay. So they have been given this particular location for their designs?

Yes.

Okay. I guess this may be a question for Corey. Since the process has already started, your artists are hopefully dreaming what they will present. Would a conceptual approval for the site, for this red square in San Pedro Park, be appropriate with them to come back for final and show us whether it's been selected by then or what the however many submissions you have and say, yes, this is the range of submissions and it will we feel will be appropriate in this location.

I don't want to speak on behalf of the other department. This is their program, but that sounds amenable.

That would be OK. We could come back to you with an exact location. The reason we do this at the beginning of our process is we wouldn't want to go to the community without having checked with you guys first. So that's what we're doing.

So it's which is the cart and which is the horse, and who do you talk to first and come back to later?

Commissioner Fitzgerald, I think that there's, with your permission, Mr. Chair, you know, remember the billboards downtown? Same department. It's public art. It came before us, and we moved the locations. So we have operated in this way, but... The creativity of the architects that come before us, like the last architects that came before us, what's the difference? If we wanted them to come to a DRC, they could come to a DRC. They could show us what they've got. As long as we knew what our limitations were, that we're not getting engaged in what they do. But there's nothing wrong with artists participating at a greater level with the commission. It increases their visibility. It's a good thing. The more transparency is not a bad thing. But to take, I think what the direction that Commissioner Fetzer is talking, that's very, I think very much in the way of even helping the artists to understand processes and it's only to make their project better because they'll have greater context. Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Mazzucca?

All that said, I totally agree with all the arguments and how much better it is for the artist to be a part of the process. Had the wording simply been, would it be appropriate to put a public art piece with all the criteria that you've set forth in a public park like San Pedro Park, I would not have pulled it. That was just a simple, okay, I do agree that there should be public art here. But the question was, select a location, which I found nearly impossible to do. Thank you. Bring more art, please.

Would you like to comment?

I was just going to say, this location was chosen from the community. The District 1 Council Office did a lot of community engagement a couple years ago, so that is why this location was chosen, just to give you guys that background.

Thank you. Let's put it in the cart before the horse.

All right. May I have a motion, please?

I move for conceptual approval of this site for future public art.

Second. Second. It's been moved and properly seconded for discussion.

Mr. Chair, I do have a question that I wanted to ask earlier. Corey, UDC amendment cycle is beginning soon, correct?

Maybe next year.

Correct. As you put your task force together to address historic preservation topics, this is one topic that should be addressed also. And to clarify a process, whether it's conceptual first or whether we see... real site-specific art in the specific site. Like architecture, the design and the product really belongs to the site and works with the site. So if there is a way to do that, to better define that, as well as the sequence between the two offices, the UDC definitely needs to be updated for that.

We were just talking about that before we started.

Hello. So that's my comment to avoid that because I agree with what my fellow commissioners have said because I firmly believe that art is site-specific, and it's really kind of crazy to pick out a spot first. It limits the creativity as well.

Thank you. All right. Hearing nothing else, may I have a roll call, please?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Agenda item number 10, HDRC case number 2026, 228, 1611 Broadway. The first item is the consideration and approval of a waiver. Excuse me, I've got a lot of stuff going on. The first item is the consideration and approval of a waiver pursuant to the Unified Development Code Section 35608G to accept and approve the application submitted for the request noted below in item two. Item number two is the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to amend a previously approved design for new construction at 1611 Broadway. Within this request, the applicant is proposed to remove a previously proposed generator pad to revise the design of a dumpster enclosure. Staff recommends approval of request item number one, the approval of a waiver to accept and review a subsequent application under the Unified Development Code section 35608G based on finding C and D. Staff recommends approval of item number two based on finding E with the stipulation that landscaping including trees is incorporated into the proposed design. Detailed landscaping plan is to be submitted to OHP staff for review and approval. There's one stipulation regarding archeology. Project shall comply with all federal, state,

local laws rules and regulations regarding archaeology as applicable the applicant james ignite is here in person james good afternoon james mcknight with ortiz mcknight on behalf of the applicant i hope you guys are not tired of seeing this site i will try to make it as brief as I can, but still cover what we need to cover. Okay, I still got control, right? Thank you. okay as edward pointed out the first item for us is a waiver this came before the commission in april and it was approved but one of the stipulations was to move that south auxiliary building and we'll get to that in a second to the west side of the site and it was really important to us to keep it on that south end so despite the approval we are coming back requesting approval to keep the building where it was and so we wanted to take commissioners comments apply those but first obviously there has to be a waiver and so one of the items as Edward pointed out there are stipulations for when a waiver is appropriate one of those is when we incorporate changes based on previous recommendations of the Commission so this is the the statement from the code itself so we we took some of the statements that commissioners had made about the uh structures or the the uses that were on either side of the auxiliary building there was a dumpster on one side and there was a generator pad on the other so we completely removed the generator pad to the south or to the east southeast and on the the dumpster building you can see has been added to the north and west of the site but in a more permanent way so that's that is us responding directly to commissioners comments there's also been increased landscaping and we have submitted a landscape plan although that there is still a stipulation for that to be reviewed later we have offered up more landscaping so that's the waiver part we've talked about the the project site as it is but one thing the only reason i'm showing this really is about the rio 2. so it just has to do with the standards that are in the rio 2 and i bring that up because i want to point out some of those ways that we believe that we still meet those standards So as a reminder, the current use, it is a seasonal family-friendly area that is used for an ice rink and for a pumpkin patch and things like that. But one of the items that's really important to us is that we connect to the site that's north and west of us as people are moving through and from the Pearl. And just really on Newell Street itself, but on the site itself, they can move anywhere. that direction and so that's one of the reasons we had asked that the building not be on the west because we're connecting or want people to connect to that side in some instances even though that is not our property that is part of the impetus for the site so this is a rendering of of the site with the the changes made you can see the auxiliary building here on the the south end the generator pad is now gone And on the north side, or west side, it's hard to see from here, but the dumpster enclosure has become more permanent. And one comment that Commissioner Savino had made to us was to incorporate that signage, that town square signage. We don't have the long elevation that you had asked for, but this is part of that drawing, is to show the continuous context of the sign, the landscaping, and the building all along Newell Street. Here's the site plan, again, you can see where the generator was removed from before and the dumpster site to the north side of the site. And again, to the north is that property that, again, is not ours, but is a part of, sometimes does connect through, and that's why we didn't want the building on that side. This is a landscape plan that's been submitted. Again, comments can be made and staff can make sure that it meets all the requirements that it needs to, but we wanted to show that we had increased shade trees along Broadway, and of course there are some shade trees along Newell as well. specific changes to the the dumpster itself again this is now permanent it's not just a fence not just a wooden fence so that this is a CMU wall with a brick on the on the outside so again becomes more permanent but it's also There's a running bond pattern instead of continuing the soldier course. That way it's shown as a separate structure, and you'll see that in a second with the full elevation. But we've also added a permanent preset cap onto the walls and metal doors to the front. Yeah, and those, we'll see it in a second, but the walls are set one course in from the auxiliary structure itself as one of the suggestions, I believe by Commissioner Savino, just so we could call it out and that it was... differentiated appropriately because it is a different height as well and here you can see the the difference in height and how that structure at least in the the south elevation you can see that structure is a shorter structure and is set in so there is a reveal on that end of the building and does not have the same patterns of brick that are going through so it can be seen as a different type of structure So in pointing out the Rio, these are some of the purposes that are in the Rio district itself about how it's, even though we're not connected to the river, it's how people are flowing from or through our property, by our property, to the river, to the Pearl in some cases. So here is, nope, that doesn't want to go.

There we go.

So there are different sets of objectives when you're looking through Rio. There's design objectives generally under Section 35670, and it talks about enhancing the pedestrian experience with high-quality streetscape designs. So here's how we're... We believe that this design meets that, that we have this landscaping and open sides that encourages people to come through, encourage neighborhood and cultural tourism. Again, this site is for people to flow through both at the south end and at the north end. maximize usable open space provide opportunities for passive recreation and community gathering that's really what the site is about is this community gathering portion and then design standards themselves that's not just general objectives but building orientation and then service and mechanical equipment so help define active spaces provide pedestrian connections between sites and animate the street scene So that's what we're trying to do here is to say that the location of the building on that south end is still appropriate because of the landscaping that we're using and that we're framing that street edge next to Newell. And so we're still meeting those design guidelines specifically for this building in that way. There are also guidelines for service area and mechanical equipment and that it be integrated with the design of the site and the building. Again, by making that dumpster enclosure permanent, we're trying to do that. Call it out, but still incorporate it and make it a permanent structure. And doing that, it adds to that street edge along Newell Avenue. So again, all of this in summary is to say we're asking for the waiver that we have incorporated the commissioner's comments and suggestions and then approve the amended application to keep the building on the south end and make that dumpster enclosure permanent. Thank you. And the architect is here to answer questions as well if there's anything more detailed that I can't handle.

Thank you, sir. Do any commissioners? Well, let me go in order now. So I'll start off on my far left. Questions for the applicant, Commissioner Guevara?

No questions right now.

Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Mazuka? Thank you. Commissioner Chavieso?

No questions at this time.

Thank you. Commissioner Savino?

No questions on the waiver request.

Thank you. Commissioner Holland? No questions. Thank you. Commissioner Mazuka? I'm sorry, Commissioner Mammon? No questions, sir. Commissioner Velazquez?

No questions, sir.

Vice Chair Fesser?

No questions. And if there are no one else, I would make a motion to approve the waiver request. Second.

It's been moved and properly seconded for the discussion.

Yes, I think the proposed design today has significantly addressed concerns that came up at the previous approval, and I think the new design is worth discussing for possible approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Second, like to comment? All right. May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

I've presented on the amended design as part of that, so if there's any questions, please.

Thank you. Questions for the applicant on the amended design, so I'll go in order again. Commissioner Guevara?

No questions right now, sir.

Commissioner Mazzucca? No questions. Commissioner Travieso?

No questions.

Commissioner Savino? No.

Yeah, the buildings on this site are pretty simple, right? They're pretty basic, functional, and it looks like you have a foundation that is just slab on grade, correct?

That's correct.

No drilled piers?

No drilled pillars, no.

No, so it's something that is, I mean, relative to the potential site, could be viewed as somewhat ephemeral.

It could, yes.

Yes, thank you. Commissioner Allen?

No questions, thank you.

Commissioner Mammon?

No question, sir. Commissioner Velasquez?

No, sir. Vice Chair Fetzer?

No questions. Again, thank you for taking into account Commissioner's questions and comments previously, and I would move for approval as submitted today. Second.

It's been moved and properly seconded. Further discussion?

I'm sorry, with staff stipulations. Seconded. Seconded.

Thank you. Further comments? All right. May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon?

Aye.

Savino? Aye. Velazquez? Aye. Mazzucca?

Aye.

Guevara?

Aye.

Triviaso?

Aye.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer? Aye. And Gibbs?

Aye. Motion carries. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Item number 11, please.

Item number 11, HDRC case number 2026, 320, or excuse me, 230, 1037 Dawson. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to construct a one-story single-family residential structure on the vacant lot at 1037 Dawson located within the Dignity Hill Historic District. Staff recommends approval based on findings A through S with the following stipulations. One, that the applicant balance ministration on the south as the front facade is noted in finding M. As proposed, there are five different administration profiles featured on the front facade, a typical for the historic profiles found within the district. Additionally, staff recommends the applicant continue to explore ways to introduce additional fenestration on the west facade, uh, to the window product specifications be submitted in a, for review and approval is noted in finding L window product shall comply with the adopted standards for windows and new construction is noted in the applicable citations. Three, the driveway width not exceed 10 feet. And then four, that a final column detail be submitted to OHP staff for review and approval. The applicant, Mr. Cesar Sosche, is here in person. Commissioners, I will note that I do have an updated document for this that addresses a handful of staff's comments. And I will just pull that document up now. Cesar, if you want to come on up.

Please introduce yourself, sir, for the record. Hello.

My name is Cesar Sustre with Cessos Design Build.

Thank you. So while he's pulling up your design, you can go ahead and start, sir.

So pulled up right now are the floor plan and the exterior elevations, which considered recommendations by staff during the conceptual review. We've changed a lot of the sizes of the windows and added the central six inch mullions on some of the windows and the horizontal muntins as recommended. When those were added to the east and west facades and the same thing on the north elevation, we added the central six-inch molding on the backside. So we think that we balanced the fenestration also considering some of the program on the inside. um on the south elevation the far left uh window we we it's it's a it it looks into a shower so correct so it's a little i think it's a little oversized but we wanted to balance that window especially with the one on the far right on the south elevation the one on the right that goes into the laundry that one is we kept it I believe at three feet sill height just because that's that's going into the laundry room and we're gonna have a stacked we only have space for a stacked washer and dryer there and so we don't want to see a washer and dryer from the outside even though you will be able to see it We've also made modifications to the floor plan by shrinking its width by three feet. So now the overall width is 43 feet. And that allowed us to get a 10-foot driveway on the left side there. And then we connected it to the existing apron. The reason it tapers like that, where it comes in at a diagonal is because we have an electrical post on the, correct. There's an electrical post right there, which really doesn't allow us to straighten that thing. And oh, and I'm sorry, the massing, we changed the massing on the front facade. So now the gable comes all the way to the front and acts as the cover for the porch. That's all I got.

All right. Thank you, sir. So, Commissioners, I'm reminded there's a letter of opposition in our files. Are there questions for this applicant? I'll start for my, how can I write this time? So, Commissioner Velasquez, questions for the applicant?

Well, I just have one question. I don't know if it's material, but I'm noticing you have two pitches.

Yes.

Would you prefer that they were both the high pitch, or are you looking for it to be higher in the center?

Yes. I wanted that ridge to be a little bit higher than the flanking gables, yes.

Okay.

That's the only question. Thank you. Commissioner Mamet?

No question, sir.

Thank you. Commissioner Holland?

No questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Savino?

Yeah. I can't let this go by. Your windows to the shower in the front, I mean, I appreciate all your updates and your updates you just sent, so they did not go out to the public and we didn't get them on Friday, right? We're just looking at them for the first time. So I see your window changes. I appreciate those going to single or double hung without that extra mutton. But the window in the shower, you're doing that so it sort of mirrors the one on the far right-hand side. And then you have the double small windows in the laundry room. And I think I would... Okay, here's a question. Would you be amenable to changing those two windows to something different, and we can talk about it during the comment period, so that they achieve what you want them to achieve, but have more relationship to the overall facade?

I mean, is this something that's going to require another conceptual review or something?

No, I don't think so. I don't think so.

Absolutely.

Okay, we'll talk later. Sure. That's the only question.

Thank you, Commissioner Chariasa.

No questions.

Commissioner Mazzucca? Thank you. Commissioner Gabbada?

No questions, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Vice Chair Fetzer?

No questions. Okay.

Can I have a motion, please?

Yes. I move for approval with staff stipulations.

Second. It's been moved and properly seconded. Discussion?

Yes, I don't want to steal Commissioner Savino's thunder here, but I agree with staff and Commissioner Savino that there may be too much going on for this very modest house and the front facade. And Edward, if you'd go back to page 12 of the submittal, where it has the rendering. Agreeing with Commissioner Savino that two smaller windows that relate to each other I think would make more sense than trying to relate something all the way across to the other side of the facade. I agree. Okay. And would you consider changing these two windows to be the same size, shorter, and more appropriate for the function? It's typical for residential, small residential houses to sort of telegraph what's on the inside of the house to the outside by their windows.

That's just common sense design right there.

Yeah. Since these are, you know, ancillary rooms, I think the smaller windows would be more appropriate, plus you're not trying to add too much to that facade.

I agree.

Thank you.

Would the second like to comment? No. Thank you. Commissioner Mammon? No comment, Chair. Commissioner Holland? No, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Savino?

Yeah, so in the laundry room you have two F1s, right?

Two F1s.

Mold together, yeah. Do one F1 there and one F1 for the shower. That would probably be sufficient. Two F1s. Perhaps, yeah. Work with staff on it.

Done.

No other comments. But I appreciate your working on this and accommodating those other features that are important in the historic district. That's how the parking works. And I'm okay with the setback being where it is. You show it just a touch in front of some of the houses, but aligned with other houses farther down the block. But what it does is it allows you to achieve on that super small lot all of these other criteria that you need for a decent home.

Commissioner Traviesa?

No comment.

Commissioner Mazzucca?

No comment.

Commissioner Guevara?

No comment, sir.

Final word for Vice Chair Fetzer?

Again, thank you for taking comments into account and revising the design to be more in keeping with the historic neighborhood. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you. May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon. Aye. Savino. Aye. Velazquez.

Aye.

Mizuka. Aye. Guevara.

Aye.

Chavieso.

Aye.

Holland. Aye. Fetzer. Aye. And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Can I have item number 12, please?

I'm so excited. What?

You can stay there. You can stay here.

Good afternoon, commissioners. This is HDRC case 2026-218. The applicant is requesting conceptual approval to construct an approximately 550 square foot, one and a half story rear addition to the primary structure to partially enclose the front porch of the primary structure and reconstruct a limestone porch column at the southeast corner of the structure to And three, replace all non-original aluminum windows of the primary structure. Staff recommends conceptual approval of the request to construct a rear addition based on findings A through K with the following stipulations. That the applicant modify the fenestration pattern on the north elevation of the proposed addition to include windows of traditional proportions as noted in finding J. Two, that the applicant submit dimensioned elevation drawings reflecting that the first stipulation has been met. Three, that the applicant submits final material specifications for wood or aluminum clad wood windows as noted in finding K. Windows should adhere to OHB specifications. Item two, staff does not recommend approval of the front porch enclosure based on finding L. Staff recommends the applicant submit a proposed design that maintains the existing footprint of the porch. The installation of the limestone column and reopening of the previously enclosed doorway would be appropriate provided there are no other modifications to the front porch. And item three, staff recommends approval of the window replacement based on finding M with the following stipulation, that the applicant submits final material specifications for wood or aluminum clad wood windows to staff for review and approval as noted in finding M. Windows should adhere to OHP specifications. And the applicant, Chelsea McGovern, is here in person. And Chelsea, you'll have 12 minutes to speak if you'd like to introduce yourself first.

Sure. Hi, Chelsea McGovern. So I guess go down to the pictures. Okay, so this is the original house currently. They added the sunroom on the back of the house in the early or the late 40s, early 50s when the daughter got to an older age and moved into the dining room and there used to be a wall. So they stopped using the living room because the son got bedroom two and she got dining room. And there was a closet right there where I opened it up. So they added a sunroom and the windows were the size that they chose. And then they converted the garage into a what I label bedroom one and it is dropped down significantly from the original floor about two and a half feet and the plumbing is not working well we're having some backup issues so anyways that's the design that I would like to do I still need to drop down the primary bedroom but I'm digging all of the garage out so that I can actually do a correct drop in the plumbing. And then, um, yeah, there you go. You can compare. And so it's going to extend 12 feet back into our backyard. And then I add another bedroom on the east side, um, where there's like, yeah, on anyways. And then right here that I, I understand what y'all recommend Corey, that you don't want me to change my front porch because it's historic. I just argue that... It is kind of an obvious architectural opportunity, like design build opportunity since it has a roof and it's a large porch and everyone else has a side porch in our neighborhood that is converted in the neighborhood. So just because I have a front door there, I am penalized and cannot convert it into interior living space. Um, but I'm okay with letting go of that. I just feel like I would like to argue that in a modern living situation, I have three boys. I would like to be able to have three full bathrooms. And, um, that's the only thing that I know is controversial. I, I, I will make the windows correct. I'm all about the historic look. So that's current look. So you can go down further. Those are pictures right now. And I just want to convert half the porch. You can keep going. Like just keep going. I don't know. And so I guess also, y'all didn't say anything, but I want to raise, I have to raise the pitch, the back pitch about seven feet, six, seven feet. You see the garage right there compared? I have to bring it up because in order to get the correct dimensional historic look on the east side, if you can go, keep going, there it is. You see the roof line right now on the existing stone? I have to keep that pitch to come back down for the new. for the new bedroom that I'm adding on. Does that make sense? So I have to continue that angle so that the original main north-south gable terminates into a higher pitch. So that's something y'all have to approve.

We treated it like a rare edition, and so this is pretty much along the lines of the guidelines, even though it is a higher pitch. The guidelines do say that they should be subordinate, but ultimately I think the original house reads, and so that's why we recommended approval.

All right.

Does that conclude your presentation? Thank you so much. I appreciate it. We'll start with questions for the applicants. To my far right, Commissioner Velasquez, questions for the applicants.

I don't have any questions, but I don't necessarily understand the drawings, just to be transparent. I can't tell what's north, south, what's the porch. Because I was getting confused between houses that are examples.

Stay right here. There, no. Okay, so the one to the top left is the existing porch. And the one to the bottom right is me enclosing it and adding a window for the bathroom. And and the and the roof is doesn't move for that because it already exists.

It's a roofed porch Right, but we would be looking at the whole thing though, right?

I'm sorry commissioner. What's the question?

We're looking at any changes, right? Correct So where the arrow is hitting the beige and with the with the with the vent where is that that's the very back that facade on that top one that's an east facing i said where the where the two windows are correct is that and then this secondary lower beige part is a brand new piece correct that's not there right now correct yeah that's one of the two extents i'm going to the north and to the east So why does the roof come down to meet it? Why does the stone roof come down to meet it if that facade is now flat?

Oh, I can do whatever you want. No, no, I'm just asking. The stone exists like that, and so I thought that y'all wanted to make sure that if anyone in the future wanted to go back to the original house, they can change it. Isn't that the rule?

No. No, I wouldn't say that there's a rule, that that's a rule.

There would be a transition of materials, and typically we would want to see that in addition. We'll require that trim piece to differentiate between the old and the new, so I think you're in line with that.

I could just pretend like it's a roof and not ruin the rock. You know how they do it?

No, I know, but at the same time, she could continue the stone.

I could.

She could, Commissioner, yes. But, again, for us, because of the layout that she's proposing, we're fine with her changing the siding material to match the rear of the house. So in this particular case, that differentiation we felt it was perfectly appropriate.

I appreciate your tolerance. So I'm going to pass it down to my fellow commissioners to speak. I'm going to listen to them because I think they'll understand it better than me.

Can you also go to the west wall? keep, no, that's the east, that's just the, keep going, keep going, there's the west, okay, actually, can you go to the next one, because it comes from a better angle, okay, so all the traditional houses, okay, so all the garages, you see the original one on the top, that was all rocked, and my neighbor said in the 80s, there was a Big kaboom, and all our rock fell off. And so we actually, whoever owned the house, reused it on the outside as a skirting material for the sunroom. They kind of fixed it up when they redid the windows. So I have a lot of rock.

Has this been here before?

Yes, it has, commissioners. It's quite a while ago. So if you look in the case file, I believe it was.

NO, I REMEMBER.

I RECALL BECAUSE THE CONDITION THAT'S AT THE TOP

The appropriate solution is at the bottom, but it would require a roof change. And at that time, I don't think that we are open to a roof change.

And that's correct. It's in the case history, Commissioner.

So it's an improvement, but I'm going to hand it down, Mr. Chair.

I will be honest. I actually proposed a second story, and y'all were like, absolutely not.

So that was it. Commissioner Mamet? No questions, sure. Commissioner Holland? No questions, thank you. Commissioner Savino?

Yeah, so that second floor, are those stairs in your plan a vestige of that, or where are they going?

Yeah, they're going up above the new primary. My biggest thing is getting access to our HVAC and also storage. I have no storage, and so I don't have a lot of tchotchkes, But, like, my boys have memorabilia, and we've got Halloween and Christmas decorations, and I just want to be able to access the attic space.

Easily through a staircase rather than a whole staircase. Because we, yeah. A narrow. Okay, will that attic be finished out and conditioned? I think part of it will. I think some of it will.

Okay.

You mentioned earlier that you had plumbing issues. Yes. And which area has the plumbing issue? All of it. All of it. Yeah. So I guess my question is, to that, depending on what the source is, having one, two, three and a half bathrooms, might that exacerbate any drop or fall or anything? No.

So what the problem is, is that... If you can, aerially, can you go to an aerial photo of that? They used to have an easement, they used to have a back alleyway and they stopped it, I don't know when, but all the, that's fine. all the utilities in the sewer would go to the alleyway, and then they changed it, and so it has a 90-degree loop going back to the front of the house.

Oh, my.

So I have to dig it up, and then I will have to get the right pitch with our plumber to go to the east side. It comes around on the east side for all of our,

houses so so you're going to completely redo it and completely yeah because the it's all cast iron plumbing count yeah okay and you were talking about your materials and using wood on the outside because it's part of an addition over years and years and we can distinguish the main original house that has the stone veneer from that new stuff to your addition your proposal to add a bathroom up in the front might you consider adding A different. Facing that plane with wood. Yes. Instead of the stone to imply that this is also an addition.

Yes. I mean, they could totally rip it out and go back to nothing if they wanted to in the future. Yes.

Is this a slab on grade or is it a raised? It is a slab, but you can.

So it's slab and it's skirt and beam. In the back. The whole original house is skirt and beam, and then I have slab on the sunroom and the garage.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Chavez.

Yes, you mentioned the attic space. Yes. Are you planning on putting your AC equipment up there? Yes. You are? Oh, yes. Okay.

Yeah. And we're going to do two units because the additional square footage, I don't want it to be stressed. I want to have a cold room.

Thank you. Commissioner Mazzucca?

No questions.

Commissioner Anghiarada? No questions. Vice Chair Petzer?

No questions. I had the same question as Commissioner Savino.

Chair, I'll make a motion then.

Please, sir. Go ahead.

Motion to approve with staff stipulations.

so it's the one and the three and staff said they didn't recommend the two right so if you're so if you're going to make a motion then I would suggest that you know you state you know prove item one you know um well you know item two then item three so do you want to do it that way or do because you right now you don't have a second so I'm just trying to clarify

Approve motion to approve item one in accord with staff, no item two, and approve item three.

I will second. It's been moved and properly seconded. Discussion?

Yes, sir. No.

Thank you. Would the seconder like to comment?

Just really just on that second item, I haven't seen us, the commission, be amenable to changing historic porches in the past. That's really the only thing.

Okay, but in our neighborhood, it happens like 90%. Even recently, I helped my neighbor 239 to the east, but she has a side porch, and it was enclosed with your recommendation of a different facade material, and we kept the columns and everything, but it's an interior room.

Thank you. Commissioner Mammon? No comment. Commissioner Savino.

So to confirm, item number two is supporting staff's recommendation. Is that correct?

Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Chavez.

No additional questions.

Commissioner Mammon. I'm sorry, Commissioner Mazuka.

No questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Guevara.

No questions, sir.

And Vice Chair Fetzer.

Asking the commissioner who made the motion, Would you consider revising that to approve the partial enclosure of the porch with a different exterior cladding wood siding to match the rear addition so that there is a clear distinction from the historic stonework and an obvious addition which could be removed in the future?

IF, FELLOW COMMISSIONER, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU'RE SEEING. I CAN'T SEE THE FRONT ELEVATION BECAUSE I DON'T SEE A DRAWING OR AN ELEVATION THAT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT GIVES ME ENOUGH CONFIDENCE. BUT I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN YOUR OPINION. THE ONE THING I'LL SAY, THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX PROJECT. It's correcting a lot of problems that we saw before that I remember the other solution didn't solve. But it gets very close to a loss of historic significance or character. But if you have confidence that that can be done in a way that makes it that you just have confidence that it'll work then I'm in the emotion to include approving item two in it in a materiality that it helps support the difference between what is historic and what is the addition that's the addition to the motion

I can't be the one to second that, but I would defer to somebody else on this and be interested.

I would second.

All right. Thank you. It's been moved and properly seconded. Further discussion on that?

Well, I would just say that I remember the project. I know it's a difficult project, and I'm trying to make your project more difficult. And I appreciate all that you're proposing to correct the problems, particularly with that weird roof in the back. And also to staff, I'll give you my thanks for y'all working with this applicant who's been working on this for a very long time. And it's a... not something that shouldn't be said publicly, that I know that y'all work very hard and I appreciate y'all working with this applicant. And I don't know her, so it's just the spirit of what y'all are doing. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go for final comments. Commissioner Mammon.

Quick question for staff. On the mentioned porches that are on the side of the houses, have those gone through approval for enclosure through us?

Yeah, we found it. It's a separate porch from the front porch. So I think that's why. It was sort of a secondary thing, and it is to the side.

Original to those houses?

I'd have to pull the case file to see if it was original, but I think so. Yes.

So all of them, Thorman built these side porches and front porches that have a screen door to outside because the lore is that everyone smoked. And so they had to go outside and sit on their porch. And so all of these porches, every single room had an exterior door and a screened exterior door. And so if you look at my picture on the front porch, you can see where they rocked up using the rock from the garage to remove the door into that first bedroom.

This front porch footprint is original?

That's correct, Commissioner, yeah. So if you look right here, this is the 1933 Sanborn, and so the footprint matches exactly what is there now.

But I think, Adrian, if you can put a photo of the porch up, like what she's saying is the footprint's original, but it has been modified because there was a door. Yes, that is correct as well, yeah. That has been filled in with the rock.

Bottom, yeah, if you zoom in, where that... That was an original exterior door and they used the rock from the garage.

Yeah, so the footprint is original, but yes, there have been modifications made.

But I will, you see the front corner, I need to rebuild a column, a stone column. So they also enclosed this into a screened-in sunroom porch and they had vented, they had A.C., into it and the people who owned it before us removed all that and that's why we have these wood four by four posts because they had everything framed in on that and that's that's what they did no other comment but we've got a hand up on yeah good um i'll say your hand up

Yeah, this is Alma Luzano of the City Attorney's Office. We have two motions on the floor. Can we clarify if the first motion was withdrawn? Typically, once a motion is on the floor, it cannot be Modified if you will or amend it unless it's a formal amendment. So in this case, I just need to clarify before any action is taken under the first motion was withdrawn.

Yes, let me let me then formally withdraw the first motion and make the second motion. That is the first plus the second. Item on the applicants sheet.

Is that good ma'am? Okay. She's sitting here. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And I'm glad she has a question because we, my question before you went to a vote on that. So perfect.

Um, commissioner Holland, I just appreciate, um, appreciate the applicants passion for the project and, uh, patience with the commission as we sort of work through this. Um, Yeah, it looks like you're trying to undo some things that were done in the past, and it's clear that you're being thoughtful. So I will support this motion.

Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Savino. No comments. Thank you. Commissioner Traviaso.

I also concur with my fellow commissioner. Thanks for your patience and your time that you've given to this project.

Thank you. Commissioner Mazuka. No comment. Commissioner Ikebara. No comment.

Just, again, to the applicant, thank you for your patience. Appreciate that.

Thank you. Yeah. No, I appreciate protecting this historic district.

Thank you. Vice Chair Pichler?

Yes, thank you. Again, thank you for working with the commission. And I guess why I was advocating, I'll be supporting the motion. Why I'm advocating for the enclosure with a different material is that this front porch is quite deep and I think with the alternate material that it'll be self-evident that this is an addition and there's enough historic fabric in the recreation of the front column there that in the future if someone wanted to return it to the original they could.

you everyone thank you to the applicant we appreciate it may have a roll call please

That was the last case on today's agenda. We appreciate you. Have a great day. We are adjourned.