* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:08] OKAY, JEFF, WE'RE LIVE. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3RD, 2021. [Roll Call] I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. FERNANDEZ HERE. FISH HERE. GIBBS VELASQUEZ. HERE. AREOLA HERE. CARPENTER GROVE. GROVE GRO. I THOUGHT ANNEMARIE WAS HERE. COMMISSIONER GRU. SHE MIGHT'VE STEPPED AWAY. UM, BOWMAN FETZER HERE. LIFO HERE. UM, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, WE DO HAVE A BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENT FROM TRANSLATION SERVICES. WE HAVE THE TRANSLATED STATEMENT. OKAY. WHEN I STARTED THE INTERPRET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MAY WE HAVE PLEASE HAVE THE CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT. [Chairman’s Statement] HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION IS AN ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I'M JEFFREY FETZER, CHAIRMAN AND THE VICE CHAIR OF SCOTT CARPENTER. IT'S 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 THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY. AND FOR DEMOLITIONS. AND CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A 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. AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CAN BE MADE, CAN BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH THIS MEETING THROUGH LIVE STREAM. THEY CAN ALSO LISTEN TO THE MEETING THROUGH AUDIO ONLY BY CALLING 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3 IN ENGLISH OR IN SPANISH. THE MEETING IS BEING RECORDED IN SPANISH. FOR THOSE APPLICATION APPLICANTS OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT REQUIRE TRANSLATION SERVICES. THE INTERPRETER WILL TRANSLATE OVER THE PHONE AS NECESSARY IN AN EFFORT TO HEAR ALL CASES ON THE AGENDA, AS WELL AS TO MINIMIZE THE LENGTH OF THE MEETING. THE APP APPLICANTS WILL NEED TO SUMMARIZE THEIR STATEMENTS AND BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION EACH HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO MINUTES FOR THEIR COMMENTS, AND EACH COMMISSIONER WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS REGARDING EACH APPLICATION. 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, I'LL ASK O H P STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TODAY'S MEETING. YES. THANK YOU. UM, THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. UM, WE DO HAVE A LONG AGENDA, BUT FIRST WE HAVE A COUPLE OF, UM, COMMISSIONED BUSINESS ITEMS TO GET TO. UM, THE FIRST I'M GONNA INTRODUCE [1. 21-1944 Briefing on Proposed Code of Conduct for the Historic and Design Review Commission] ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CAMILLA CANAL, TO PRESENT, UM, A BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE H T R C. KIM, ARE YOU THERE? WE'LL HAVE TO. SORRY, I'M TALKING WHILE I'M MUTED. , THAT'S FINE. WHICH MANY OF YOU MAY PREFER. UM, I'M GLAD TO MEET WITH YOU ALL THIS AFTERNOON AND I WON'T TAKE UP VERY MUCH OF YOUR TIME, BUT, UM, I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE THE FIRST, UH, CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION THAT IS GETTING ROLLED OUT WITH THE, UM, CODE OF CONDUCT. THE CITY COUNCIL IS ALSO GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO, UH, PRESENTED THIS CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEETINGS IN ORDER FOR ALL OF OUR MEETINGS TO BE RUNNING MORE SMOOTHLY, UM, AND LESS INTERRUPTION SO THAT Y'ALL CAN GET TO THE END OF YOUR AGENDA. UM, THIS, THIS CODE OF CONDUCT, COREY HAS, UH, KINDLY SAID THAT HE WOULD [00:05:01] SHARE THE SCREEN. I'M NOT SURE. COREY, CAN YOU SHARE THE SCREEN WITH THE ACTUAL CODE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED? SORRY, WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT ON THE SCREEN. THERE WE GO. THERE WE GO. ALRIGHT. SO, THE PURPOSE OF THIS CODE FOR ALL OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL, COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IS FOR THE CITIZENS TO HAVE FAIR, ETHICAL, AND ACCOUNTABLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. AND SO TO THIS END, EVERYONE WHO IS ON ONE OF THESE BOARDS MUST COMPLY WITH THE LETTER IN SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND ORDINANCES APPLY. UM, BE INDEPENDENT, IMPARTIAL, AND FAIR IN YOUR JUDGMENT AND ACTIONS. USE YOUR OFFICE FOR PUBLIC GOOD AND COMMUNITY NEEDS, AND NOT FOR PERSONAL GAIN OR SELF-PROMOTION, AND TO CONDUCT PUBLIC DELIBERATIONS OPENLY AND IN AN ATMOSPHERE OF RESPECT AND CIVILITY. I KNOW THAT C OVID 19 HAS BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME AND IT'S STARTING TO STRETCH THE, UM, TEMPERS AND CONFIDENCE AND PATIENCE OF SEVERAL. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY, UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY MANAGER WANTED TO ROLL ALL THIS OUT FOR ALL OF US. UM, THIS CODE OF CONDUCT IS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU FOR REVIEW TODAY AND FOR CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION. AT YOUR NEXT MEETING, YOU'LL BE GETTING A COPY OF THIS CODE OF CONDUCT TO REVIEW AND OFFER COMMENT. ALL MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION, INCLUDING THE CHAIR, HAVE EQUAL VOTES. YOU'RE ALL AUTHORIZED AND APPOINTED BY YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. NO ONE HAS MORE LEGISLATIVE POWER THAN ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CHAIR WHO IS CHARGED WITH CONDUCT OF THE MEETING. EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH EQUAL DIGNITY AND RESPECT. NO ONE IS MORE IMPORTANT OR LESS IMPORTANT THAN ANYONE ELSE. TO THAT END, YOU SHOULD FULLY PARTICIPATE IN YOUR MEETING, UM, WITH KINDNESS, CONSIDERATION AND COURTESY. PREPARE IN ADVANCE, REVIEW THE AGENDA, THE REPORTS, THE PRESENTATIONS, MEMOS, ET CETERA. BE FAMILIAR SO THAT YOU'RE NOT ASKING QUESTIONS THAT PERHAPS WERE ALREADY ANSWERED BY THE DOCUMENTATION. UM, DIRECT STAFF, STAFF QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE IF YOU HAVE ANY, SO THAT THE PUBLIC DELIBERATION AND INFORMATION IS EFFECTIVE AND TIMELY. REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, NOT JUST YOUR APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN YOUR DISTRICT AND IN THE CITY. SO RESPECT THEIR VIEWS, THEIR ISSUES, AND THEIR CONCERNS. UM, BE VERY PROFESSIONAL. YOU SHOULD BE SERVING AS A MODEL OF LEADERSHIP. YOU MAY BE THE ONLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO THAT THESE, UH, RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS SEE, AND THAT WE WANT THEM TO HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT OF POSITIVE, UM, RESPECT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. REMEMBER TO STAY FOCUSED, BE SUCCINCT, AND ACT EFFICIENTLY DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS. THERE'S NOT REALLY A TIME FOR LONG PERSONAL OPINIONS THAT WE NEED TO BE FACTUAL ABOUT WHAT THE, UH, WHAT IS BEFORE YOU. UM, SO THE CHAIR IS RESPONSIBLE TO KEEP TRACKS ON COMMENT. UM, HONOR THE EFFORTS OF THE CHAIR FOCUSING YOUR DISCUSSION ON THE CURRENT AGENDA ITEM. IF THERE'S DISAGREEMENT, RESPECTS THE DISAGREEMENT. UM, IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE CHAIR'S ACTIONS, YOU CAN VOICE POLITELY AND WITH REASON, ADDRESSING YOUR COMMENTS TO THE CHAIR, NOT EACH OTHER, EXCEPT FOR THE TIME WHERE YOU'RE ASKING THE, THE APPLICANT'S QUESTION. UM, PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWED. THAT'S THE SHOULD HAVE A FAIR, IMPARTIAL, AND RATIONAL MEETING. THE CHAIR IS CHARGED THOUGH WITH MAKING THE EFFICIENT, THE MEETING EFFICIENT. HE HAS THE DISCRETION TO MODIFY THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AND MAKE THE MEETINGS RUN SMOOTHLY. YOU MIGHT HEAR THE MAYOR SOMETIMES SAYING, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE SIGNED UP. WE'RE GONNA, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME TODAY, SO WE'RE GONNA LIMIT OUR CONVERSATION TO, INSTEAD OF THREE MINUTES, ONE MINUTE, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. UM, COMMISSIONERS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO EXPRESS OPINIONS, UM, DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE MEETING, EXCEPT TO ASK PERTINENT QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER OR STAFF, SUCH AS, I THINK, OR I FEEL AREN'T APPROPRIATE UNTIL AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. UM, THE QUESTION AND ANSWER BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMISSIONERS. AND PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ARGUING OR DEBATING WITH THOSE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING. SHOW RESPECT FOR DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW. WE HAVE MAIN MOTIONS THAT COULD BE FOLLOWED BY AMENDMENT, FOLLOWED BY SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS. YOU CAN CALL A POINT OF ORDER WHEN YOU BELIEVE THAT A, A PROCEDURAL RULE IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED, AND YOU CAN SEEK A TIMELY RULING BY THE CHAIR. ONLY COMMISSIONERS WHO VOTED ON PREVAILING SIDES MAY MAKE MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER AN ITEM. PLEASE BE MINDFUL THAT THE COMMISSION IS A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS WITH A WIDE VARIETY OF BACKGROUNDS, PERSONALITIES, VALUES, OPINIONS AND GOALS. ALL OF YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO SERVE IN PUBLIC OFFICE TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY. YOUR COMMON GOAL SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED EVEN AS YOU MAY AGREE TO DISAGREE ON CONTENTIOUS ISSUES DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS. THERE MIGHT BE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS AND TOUGH CHALLENGES TO, TO A PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW. THERE MIGHT, YOU MIGHT FEEL CRITICISM OF IDEAS AND INFORMATION. THERE ARE LEGITIMATE ELEMENTS OF A FREE DEMOCRACY AND ACTION THAT MY BOSS'S WORDS. [00:10:01] IT'S VERY GOOD. THIS DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO MAKE BELLIGERENT, PERSONAL, IMP PERTINENT, SLANDEROUS, THREATENING, ABUSIVE, OR DISPARAGING COMMENT. SO KEEP IN MIND YOU HONOR THE ROLE OF THE CHAIR IN MAINTAINING ORDER OF THE MEETING. YOU PRACTICE STABILITY, PROFESSIONALISM, AND DECORUM AND DISCUSSION AND DEBATE. THERE SHOULD BE NO SHOUTING, INTIMIDATION OR PHYSICAL ACTIONS THAT COULD REASONABLY BE CONSTRUED AS THREATENING. THOSE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. THE CHAIR WILL CALL YOU OUT ON THAT. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK THE FIRST TIME AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES AFTER EACH COMMISSIONER WHO DESIRES TO SPEAK HAS DONE SO, RESPECT THAT FIVE MINUTE SPEAKING TIME LIMIT. AND PLEASE DO NOT INTERRUPT THE SPEAKER. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK AS WELL. YOU ONLY GET TO SPEAK WHEN YOU'RE CALLED UPON BY THE CHAIR. THERE IS NO INTERRUPTING. UM, THE CHAIR HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALTER THE SPEAKING TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CASES. AND IT'S OUR HOPE THAT IN ADOPTING THIS POLICY AND PROTOCOL, THAT YOUR MEETINGS ARE SMOOTHER AND YOU ACTUALLY CAN GET TO THE END OF AN AGENDA AND EVERYONE CAN GO HOME FEELING, EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T FEEL GREAT, AT LEAST THAT YOU DID YOUR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY AND YOU DID IT PROPERLY. AND TO, THAT WAS PRETTY QUICK. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME AT THIS TIME? I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE POINT TO ORDER. UH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONERS CAN, CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN ME THAT WHAT THE RULES ARE AROUND THAT? SO A POINT OF ORDER IS WHEN YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PARLIAMENTARY RULES ARE NOT BEING FOLLOWED. FOR EXAMPLE, A PERSON HAS SPOKEN THEIR FIRST TIME AND STARTS TO SPEAK AGAIN WHEN NOT EVERYONE HAS HAD THEIR FIRST TURN TO SPEAK. UM, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OR IF A MOTION IS BEING MADE THAT IS NOT A PROPER MOTION AT THAT TIME, I DON'T HAVE AN EXAMPLE IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW. UM, THEN YOU MIGHT SAY, YOU KNOW, CHAIR POINT OF ORDER, IS THIS MOTION IN ORDER? IS IT AN APPROPRIATE MOTION? AND THAT'S WHEN ALMA WILL COME IN AND CONFER WITH THE CHAIR AND YOU'LL GET AN ANSWER. THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'S NOT JUST, I DON'T LIKE WHAT SOMEBODY IS SAYING. IT HAS TO BE THAT THE RULES AREN'T BEING FOLLOWED. OKAY. AND THEN WHAT IS ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER WHEN THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE? THE LANGUAGE WE'RE USING CURRENTLY IS THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, AND SOMETIMES THAT CREATES MORE DISCUSSION. WHAT ARE THE RULES AROUND THAT? ONCE THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE? WELL, SO A MOTION IS MADE AND SECONDED, AND THEN THAT IS BEFORE YOU AS A COMMISSION, AND THAT'S WHEN YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HAVING ALL OF YOUR DEBATES AND DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. UM, AND THEN THE CHAIR WILL ASK IF THERE'S ANY MORE COMMENTS. AND THEN THE CHAIR WILL TAKE A VOTE. YOU MIGHT SEE IT IN REVERSE A LOT OF TIMES AT COUNCIL, AND WE ARE REALLY WORKING HARD WITH THEM TO, THE CLERK WILL READ THE CAPTION AND A COUNCIL MEMBER IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE A MOTION AND GET A SECOND BEFORE THE COMMENTS ARE STARTED. AND, AND YOU'LL, IF YOU WATCH COUNCIL, WHICH I DO, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU ALL DO ON A REGULAR BASIS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THEY ARE STARTING TO FOLLOW THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE RUN INTO CONFUSING MOTIONS BEING MADE IN THE MIDDLE OF CONVERSATION. AND THEN ANOTHER PERSON MAKES ANOTHER MOTION AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT ITEM IS PROPERLY. MOTION IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE BODY. NOW THAT DISCUSSION IS ON THE MOTION ITSELF, OR WE GO BACK TO DISCUSSION ON THE CASE. SO THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE CASE, AND THE SECOND WOULD BE, I SECOND THAT, AND THEN YOU CAN DISCUSS THE MERIT OF THE CASE AS FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE MOTION. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD APPROVE THE MOTION. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE THIS FURTHER DISCUSSION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YOU, YOU JUST STICK TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUB OF THE MOTION. UH, AND I HAVE A COMMENT, CAMILLA, I THINK THAT THAT PROBABLY, UH, WHAT SHOULD PROBABLY BE ADDED TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THERE'S NOTHING SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT DOING EVERYTHING PERFECT ALREADY. RIGHT? , THIS IS JUST THE RULES. WELL, 'CAUSE YOU HAVE, YEAH. WELL, OKAY. I'M GONNA TAKE YOUR LAUGH AS AN ANSWER BECAUSE, UH, TO, TO A LARGE EXTENT, I'VE BEEN APPROACHED BY PEOPLE IN THE, IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED AT THE CHANGING TIME, THE LIMITATIONS OF TIME. THEY'RE EXPECTING THAT THERE'S ENOUGH TIME TO, TO, TO, TO GIVE AN ANSWER THAT'S EQUITABLE TO ALL PARTIES, INCLUDING THE APPLICANTS. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST IN THE LIMITATIONS OF TIME THAT WE DID LAST TIME, I WAS APPROACHED, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, AS TO WHEN WE'RE GONNA GET BACK TO NORMAL, THIS KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING EVEN FURTHER INTO A MORE DRACONIAN, UH, UH, UH, WAY OF LOOKING AT DEMOCRACY, RIGHT? THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. BUT, BUT A AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE SAYING DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE NOT DOING EVERYTHING PERFECT ALREADY, RIGHT? BECAUSE IN THE END, UH, UH, THE APPLICANT'S JUSTICE, THE APPLICANT'S EXPECTATION FOR A FAIR HEARING IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE ON THESE COMMISSIONS FOR. RIGHT? WE'RE ON THE COMMISSION JUST TO, TO SAY, WELL, YOU GOT FIVE MINUTES. YOUR FIVE MINUTES IS UP, AND JUSTICE IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE. WELL, THEN I SERIOUSLY QUESTION WHAT THE MOTIVATION BEHIND, UH, CHANGING SOMETHING THAT POSSIBLY MIGHT ALREADY BE PERFECT. [00:15:01] WELL, SIR, I DON'T THINK I WOULD BE HERE IF, UM, IF THIS WASN'T NECESSARY. WELL, OKAY, THEN, THEN I THINK THAT WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS YOU NEED TO COME OUT WITH YOUR A ACCUSATIONS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEN, THEN YOU, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WITH RESPECT TO WHATEVER COMMISSION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT YOU, THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ACTUAL PEOPLE YOU'RE RESPONDING TO, TO SITUATIONS THAT ARE REAL. 'CAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE NOT THEORETICAL BECAUSE THEORETICALLY, WE COULD BE DOING EVERYTHING PERFECT ALREADY, RIGHT? I MEAN, THEORETICALLY THIS IS, THIS IS NOT JUST FOR THE H D R C. THESE RULES ARE GONNA BE SPREAD OUT UPON ALL OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, WHICH ARE ALREADY BY CITY CODE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ROBERT'S RULES OF BOARDS. WE'RE JUST REMIND, THAT'S WHAT MY POINT IS. THAT'S WHAT MY POINT IS, CAMILLA. THAT, THAT, THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE BEING ASKED TO YOU A SECOND AGO ON OUR MOTIONS, HOW WE DO OUR MOTIONS AND ALL THAT, WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES, UH, WITH, WITH ALL OF THAT. AND I'VE BEEN WATCHING CITY COUNCIL AND I'VE SEEN THERE WAS ONE CASE VERY RECENTLY WHERE, UH, MR. VINNO MADE A MOTION AND THE MOTION GOT LOST AND EVERYBODY HAD TO FIND THAT MOTION. SO I'M AWARE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT ALL OF THESE CHANGES MIGHT JUST BE RELEVANT TO CITY COUNCIL. OF COURSE, WE'RE ALL GONNA FOLLOW THOSE SAME RULES AND ALL THAT, BUT WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE H D R C IS DOING EVERYTHING THAT, THAT RESULTS IN AN APPLICANT RECEIVING THE MOST JUST AND FAIR HEARING COULD BE POSSIBLE THAT THE H D R C MIGHT BE GIVING, UH, THE BEST EXAMPLE OF HOW TO HAVE APPLICANTS RECEIVE THE MOST, JUST AND FAIR HEARING. WE, WE MIGHT BE, UH, A MODEL FOR HOW THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WORK. SO, SO JUST NOT TO COMPLICATE HOW WE'RE DOING THINGS, UH, I'M SURE THAT WE'LL BE MORE MINDFUL OF EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING, BUT, UH, IT IS MY OPINION THAT, THAT THE DELIBERATION THAT GOES ON, UH, ON THIS COMMISSION IS IT, IT IT MOST DEFINITELY DEMONSTRATES HOW IT'S NOT IN THE FIX, RIGHT? HOW THERE, THERE, THERE'S NO DECISION THAT'S IN THE FIX BECAUSE OUR, OUR ARGUMENTS AND OUR, OUR, OUR DELIBERATIONS KIND OF PROVE THAT. SO I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT WE MIGHT BE A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW YOU OPERATE A BOARD. IT'S MY OPINION. I APPRECIATE YOUR OPINION AND YOUR SUGGESTIONS, SIR. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL LET YOU MOVE ON TO YOUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM AND APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO ME AND, UH, HEAR THE PROPOSED PROTOCOL. THANK YOU, KIM. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. ONE LA ONE LAST COMMENT. THIS IS, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER. UH, COREY WILL BE SENDING US THIS DOCUMENT AND, UH, COMMISSIONERS PLEASE REVIEW IT AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, PLEASE SEND THEM BACK TO STAFF, UH, BEFORE, UH, THE NEXT AGENDA COMES OUT SO THAT, UH, IF WE NEED TO MAKE ANY, UH, REVISIONS, THEY CAN RUN IT THROUGH. UH, CITY ATTORNEY AND THANK YOU, CAMILLA. THANK YOU. GOODBYE. HAVE A GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU. [2. 21-1945 Amendment of the 2021 Historic and Design Review Commission Schedule of Hearing Dates to add a hearing on March 31, 2021] OKAY, UP NEXT. UM, WE ARE STAFF IS REQUESTING OFFICIAL ACTION TO AMEND THE H C R C SCHEDULE OF HEARINGS. UM, TO ADD MARCH 31ST, UM, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO CANCEL THE, THE LAST HEARING DUE TO THE WINTER STORM. UM, SO THIS IS A MAKE DATE. UM, WE HAVE DONE THE OUTLOOK FOR THE, UH, MARCH 17TH HEARING, AND WE DO THINK THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CATCH UP THEN, BUT IF NOT, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT 31ST DATE AS A FALLBACK SO THAT OUR CUSTOMERS AREN'T WAITING TOO LONG. AND SO WE JUST NEED A MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULE TO ADD MARCH 31ST. MR. COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ, UH, I MOTION TO AMEND ACCOUNT DATE FOR MARCH 31ST. COMMISSIONER FISH. I SECOND. UM, MR. CHAIR, I, I WANTED TO, TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE YOU, UH, BEFORE YOU VOTE ON IT, UH, I HAD BROUGHT TO, UH, UH, UH, STAFF'S, UH, ATTENTION THAT MARCH 31ST WAS A OPTIONAL HOLIDAY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE C CHAVEZ DAY. UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSION IS MINDFUL OF, OF, UH, OF THAT WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY TAKE THEIR VOTE. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION, SECOND TO ADD MARCH 31ST TO THE, UH, AGENDA SCHEDULE, UM, OR THE COMMISSION SCHEDULE. UM, I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. SORRY, I MUTED MYSELF. FERNANDEZ AYE FISH. AYE, UH, VELASQUEZ NAY. AREOLA AYE. GROUP. AYE. ZER. AYE. LA AYE. THANK YOU ALL AND AS I SAID, HOPEFULLY WE WON'T HAVE TO USE IT, BUT IT IS THERE, UM, IN CASE WE NEED IT. UM, SO NOW WE CAN GO TO OUR, OUR REGULAR, UH, AGENDA. UM, ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT, LEE SO WE CAN SEE THE FULL LIST HERE. UM, SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE HAVE TAKEN THE FEBRUARY 17TH AGENDA AND COMPLETELY RESET IT. THOSE ARE THE ITEMS IN BLACK. UM, AND THEN WE TOOK INCOMING CASES THAT, THAT MET ALL THE APPLICATION DEADLINES. UM, AND WERE ELIGIBLE TO BE PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA BASED ON OUR POLICIES. AND THOSE ARE SHOWN IN BLUE. UM, WE'VE GROUPED THEM TOGETHER THAT WAY. [00:20:01] UM, WHAT'LL HAPPEN IS I WILL READ THROUGH ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR CONSENT ITEMS. FIRST. I CAN NORMALLY DO IF BASED ON THE COMMENTS PROVIDED, THE COMMISSIONERS WISH TO PULL ANY ITEMS FROM CONSENT THAT ARE IN BLUE, WE WILL ACTUALLY HEAR THOSE AT THE END OF THE FULL INDIVIDUAL AGENDA. SO THERE'S A CHANCE THAT WE MAY NOT GET TO THOSE, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF YOU WERE ALREADY IN LINE TO BE HEARD ON TODAY'S OR ON THE FEBRUARY 17TH AGENDA, YOUR CASE WILL GO FIRST. WE'LL STAY IN THAT ORDER. UM, SO LET ME BEGIN WITH [Public Comments] THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. UM, THE FIRST IS FOR ITEM 4 1 34 WEST MISSILE TOE. UM, PAUL KINISON SUBMITS THAT THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED C O A APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT AN A D A RAMP ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE HISTORIC 1920 ATLEY AIRS HOUSE WITH THE APPLICANT. WE WOULD RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE C O A APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. ONE, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R FOUR H, SINGLE FAMILY HISTORIC TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES HAVE NO REQUIREMENT FOR AN A D A RAMP. THREE. THE APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS INDICATE THAT THE HOUSE WILL BE USED AS OFFICES, MEETING ROOMS, OFFICES, STORAGE, AND OTHER OFFICE FUNCTIONS. THE PROPOSED USE WOULD REQUIRE A ZONING CHANGE OR WOULD BE A ZONING CODE VIOLATION. FOUR, UNTIL THE ZONING IS RESOLVED. WE RECOMMEND THE APPLICANT NOT PROCEED WITH THE C O A APPLICATION TO AVOID THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING AN A D A RAMP THAT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED BY R FOUR H ZONING. FIVE. ADDITIONALLY, IF OUR READING OF THE APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS IS CORRECT, THE POSSIBLE PROPOSED USE OF THE APPLICANT BY THE APPLICANT WOULD REQUIRE 12 ONSITE PARKING SPACES, WHICH ARE NOT INDICATED IN THE C O A APPLICATION EXHIBITS. IT'S NOT CLEAR HOW THIS PARKING REQUIREMENT COULD BE MET. SIX. WE ARE AWARE THAT THE H C R C IS NOT CONCERNED WITH INTERIOR USE OR ZONING. HOWEVER, UNTIL THE USE ISSUE IS RESOLVED, WE RECOMMEND DENIAL TO SAVE THE APPLICANT ON DUE COSTS THAT COULD BE PREVENTED. SEVEN. WHILE THE ZONING ISSUE SHOULD BE, IT SHOULD BE ADEQUATE REASON FOR A DENIAL, THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES WITH THE APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS THAT SHOULD RESULT IN DENIAL AS WELL, SUCH AS THE STATUS OF EXISTING FENCE AND GARAGE LOCATION OF A D A RAMP IN RELATION TO STREET GATE OPERATION, ELEVATION, PARKING SPACES, ACCESSIBLE ROUTE, ET CETERA. WE RECOMMEND DELAY OR DENIAL OF C O A. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. UM, AND WE DO HAVE VOICEMAILS FOR THAT ITEM. HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO . MY NAME IS TONY GARCIA. I LIVE AT 2 43 EAST ATCH AVENUE. I'M A MEMBER OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTH OF VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. MY COMMENTS ARE FOR ITEM FOUR CASE 21 DASH 1911 FOR 1 34 WEST MISSILE TO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COMMISSION TO DENY OR AT LEAST DELAY ACTION ON THE APPLICATION FOR 1 34 WEST MISSILE TOW. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MORE THOROUGH AND COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS HOME'S FUTURE USE TO AVOID ANY ADVERSE IMPACT DOWN THE ROAD. IN ADDITION TO THE EXHIBIT SHORTCOMINGS NOTED BY PAUL KINISON, CHAIRMAN OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, WE FEEL THERE IS A NEED FOR MORE CLARITY BEFORE ANY STRUCTURAL CHANGES ARE MADE TO THIS ADLIB B AIRS HOME. WE UNDERSTAND THAT ZONING MAY NOT BE PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS BY THIS COMMISSION, BUT IT IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT ZONING HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT OF OUR HISTORIC HOMES. THIS ADLY B AIRS HOME IS CURRENTLY ZONED R FOUR, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL ZONING FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE PROPOSED PLAN IS SHOWN IN DRAWING A TWO DASH ONE. THERE APPEARS TO BE A SIGNIFICANT COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, WHICH WE BELIEVE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER RESIDENTIAL ZONING. THEREFORE, WE BELIEVE A REZONING DISCUSSION NEEDS TO OCCUR WITH THE CITY FIRST BEFORE ANY STRUCTURAL CHANGES ARE MADE BY THE APPLICANT. WE KNOW THAT MORE INTENSE ZONING MAY HAVE MORE INTENSE REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD SIGNIFICANTLY ALTER THIS HISTORIC LOT. THEREFORE, ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS MUST BE CLARIFIED BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION. WE BELIEVE WE HAVE THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE FOR 1 34 WEST MELE TOE AND THEREFORE REQUEST A DENIAL OR DELAY ACTION ON THIS APPLICATION. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. OKAY. UM, THE OTHER VOICEMAIL FOR THIS WAS ALSO FROM PAUL KINISON. I ACTUALLY READ HIS STATEMENT. I DIDN'T REALIZE HE HAD SUBMITTED IT BOTH WAYS. UM, SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. SO ITEM 6 10 24 DAWSON, UM, SUBMITTED BY SCOTT RHETT. UM, WE SUPPORT O HP'S RECOMMENDATIONS. YOU ALSO NOTE THAT PERFORMING STUDIES TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE STRUCTURE'S HEIGHT CAN BE FURTHER REDUCED. THAT'S SOME QUOTATIONS. UM, A QUOTE FROM STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TYPICALLY PRODUCES NO CHANGE. THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY REDUCE THE PLATE HEIGHTS OF EACH APARTMENT FLOOR FOR REDUCED BUILDING HEIGHTS OR CONSIDER LOWER PLATES AND DORMERS TO ACHIEVE WOULD MORE LIKELY CREATE RESULTS. UH, MOVING ON TO ITEM 17, UM, SUBMITTED BY PAT ZIONS FOR THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY. UM, THEY LOOK FORWARD TO THE SUCCESSFUL RELOCATION OF THE DIXON HOUSE ON SOUTH PRESA STREET AS PART OF THE ROSARIO'S REDEVELOPMENT INTO THE LAVACCA HISTORIC DISTRICT WITH A RECENTLY RESTORED PORCH. THIS RAIN VICTORIAN CAN EASILY BE MOVED INTACT TO THE NEW LOCATION JUST [00:25:01] TO THE NORTH. WE ARE PLEASED THAT THE DEVELOPERS GUARANTEEING THE PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORIC STONE AND CALICHE WALLS AS DEFINED IN THE APPLICATION WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE WALLS PRESERVED IN PLACE AND THE OTHER SECTION, HAND DISASSEMBLED AND HAND REASSEMBLED ON THE NORTHERN PERIMETER OF THE NEW BUILDING, PROVIDING SUITABLE AND SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION SUPPORT. THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY RECOGNIZES THAT THE MASSING AND ELEVATION OF THE NEW BUILDING HAVE IMPROVED AND ARE LESS OUTTA SCALE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE SUPPORT THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION FINDINGS, THAT SIGNAGE WILL BE REVIEWED AS A SEPARATE APPLICATION. UM, THE NEXT COMES FROM CARL BAKER. UM, I, AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE OWNERS OF MAVERICK RE RESTAURANT. AS INDICATED IN COMMENTS FROM MR. SELIG, THE PLANS FOR THE ROSARIO'S RESTAURANT AT 7 22 SOUTH ST. MARY'S WOULD BE DEVASTATING FOR THE MAVERICK AND EQUALLY DESTRUCTIVE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING THAT HOUSES MAVERICK. IN ADDITION TO THE CONCERNS REFERENCED BY MR. SELIG, WE BRING THE FOLLOWING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE H C R C AND FOR THE RECORD ONE, THIS PROPOSAL APPEARS TO VIOLATE THE ADOPTED ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY. THE I D C ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY DATING TO 2000 2014 WAS CONDITIONED UPON ADHERENCE TO A SITE PLAN THAT HAS NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE PROPOSAL BEFORE H D R C. THE SITE PLAN REFERENCES COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ABOUT 11,000 SQUARE FEET, A FRACTION OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. THE I D Z ZONING SITE PLAN ALSO SHOWS AN AMPLE BUFFER BETWEEN MAVERICK AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT THE OWNERS OF MAVERICK HAVE RELIED UPON IN BUILDING THEIR BUSINESS. TWO, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A SIMILAR SCALE AND MASTER ADJOINING BUILDINGS, AS IS CALLED FOR UNDER THE CITY'S HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. SIMPLY PUT, THE SCALE AND MASTER OF THE BUILDING IS WIDELY DISPROPORTIONATE TO WHAT EXISTS IN PROXIMITY. THREE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED NEW BUILDING ON THE, ON THE ADJACENT MAVERICK BUILDING THAT HAS HISTORIC CHARACTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED ADEQUATELY. IN FACT, WE COULD, WE COULD FIND NO EVIDENCE THAT THOSE IMPACTS WERE ANALYZED IN THE AGENDA MATERIALS FOR THIS ITEM. WE NOTE THAT NONE OF THE RENDERINGS DEPICT THE NEW ROSARIO'S BUILDING ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING 1945 SPANISH ECLECTIC STYLE BUILDING THAT HOUSES MAVERICK AND SUGGESTS THAT THIS BE, THIS IS BECAUSE SUCH A DEPICTION WOULD DEMONSTRATE THE CLEAR LACK OF CONSISTENCY AND HARM. UM, WE HAVE TWO CALLERS FOR THIS. UM, LET'S HEAR FROM, UH, LISA FIRST, WHO I BELIEVE JESS HAS ON THE LINE. I DO, I HAVE LISA LYNN FROM K W A ON THE LINE. GO AHEAD LISA. THANK YOU. DEAR COMMISSIONERS, THE KING VOLUME ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT. WE APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS WITH CERTAIN ARCHITECTURAL ASPECTS THAT THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND CONCUR WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL AND STIPULATIONS. HOWEVER, WE DO SUGGEST THAT THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS FOR FINAL APPROVAL BE ADDED, THAT THE OUTSIDE SURFACES OF THE CALICHE WALLS SURROUNDING THE KIVA ROOM 1 0 9 BE EXPOSED ON THE WEST AND SOUTH PORTIONS TO BE VIEWED BY PATRONS FROM THE MAIN DINING ROOM. NUMBER TWO, THAT THE FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE KING WILLIAM GARDEN HOUSE BE CHANGED TO A STYLE AND MATERIAL APPROPRIATE FOR THE VINTAGE OF THAT HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND SUBMITTED WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR APPROVAL. THANK YOU. OKAY, NEXT, LET'S PLUG IN EDWARD, WHO HAS PETER SELIG ON THE LINE. UM, BEFORE WE BRING IN PETER, WHO IS THE OWNER OF THE MAVERICK, I DO WANNA MENTION THAT, UM, AS YOU ARE FAMILIAR, WE HAVE A, UM, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICY. UM, WE REQUIRE THAT ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND VOICEMAILS SUBMITTED FOR THE CASE BE SUBMITTED BY 9:00 AM. UM, LATER THIS MORNING AT ABOUT 11, WE STARTED RECEIVING VOICEMAILS, UM, IN OPPOSITION OF ITEM 17, UM, MOSTLY BECAUSE OF THE IMPACTS TO THE COURTYARD. AND SO THERE WAS, UM, SUPPORT FOR THE MAVERICK AND THEIR CONCERN FOR THE PROPERTY. UM, WE ACTUALLY HAVE MORE THAN 150, I THINK, AND ARE STILL MAYBE RECEIVING THEM. UM, SO WE JUST WANT TO NOTE, NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED QUITE A NUMBER OF VOICEMAILS IN OPPOSITION. UM, AND, AND JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE, UM, PETER, ARE YOU THERE? EDWARD? DO WE NEED TO UNMUTE YOU? ? I WASN'T ABLE TO GET AN ANSWER. I'M GONNA CALL AGAIN RIGHT NOW. OKAY. CO. CORY, COULD YOU REMIND ME WHICH, UH, CASE IS THE CASE THAT, UM, UH, THE PAUL KENON AND WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ADA? YEAH, THAT WAS CASE NUMBER FOUR. NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU, KURT. PETER, ARE YOU THERE? YES, YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES. HI, THIS. OKAY, THIS IS PETER SIG, UH, MAVERICK RESTAURANT, WHICH IS JASON TO PROPOSED ROSARIO'S, [00:30:01] AND WE OBJECT IN THE STRONGEST TERMS TO THE PROPOSED 20 FOOT WALL THAT IS SET TO BE ONLY SIX INCHES AWAY FROM MAVERICK'S EXISTING WINDOWS AND FROM THE RESTAURANTS. A CASE IS THE CASE THAT, UH, PAUL AND, UH, PETER, CAN YOU, ARE YOU THERE? YEAH. PETER, CAN YOU MUTE YOUR, UM, LIVE FEED? YEAH. I'M SORRY. I'M, I'M WATCHING THAT . THAT'S FINE. CAN I'M RECORDED AGAIN? GO AHEAD. POSSIBLE, YES. HEAR YOU FINE UNTIL THAT POINT. READY? WE'RE READY? YES. HI, THIS IS PETER SIG. I OWN MAVERICK RESTAURANT, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO PROPOSED ROSARIOS AT 7 22 SOUTH ST. MARY'S. WE OBJECT IN THE STRONGEST TERMS POSSIBLE. THE PROPOSED 20 FOOT WALL THAT'S ONLY SIX INCHES AWAY FROM MAVERICK'S EXISTING WINDOWS, AND FROM THE RESTAURANT'S ONLY OUTDOOR PATIO SEATING. ADDING THE WALL WOULD ELIMINATE ALMOST ALL NATURAL LIGHT AND AIR MAVERICK'S ONLY OUTDOOR SEATING AREA IN THE ADJACENT KITCHEN DINING ROOM, WHICH TOGETHER IS 50% OF MAVERICK'S SEATING. IT WOULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DINING EXPERIENCE DRAMATICALLY, AND IT WOULD ALSO BARRICADE THE ONLY TWO WINDOWS IN MAVERICK'S MAIN DI. THE RENDERINGS FROM ROSARIO'S FROM H G R C SEEMED TO IGNORE AND HIDE THE DEVASTATING IMPACT OF WHAT THIS WALL WOULD DO TO MAVERICK. HOWEVER, MAVERICK HAS TO OBTAIN H D R C APPROVAL FOR OUR PATIO DESIGN THREE YEARS AGO, AND SO WE'VE COMPLIED WITH THEIR REQUEST. AND THERE WAS ALSO A PRE-EXISTING PATIO WHERE THE CURRENT PATIO EXISTS. ROSARIO'S PLAN WOULD ERASE COMPLETELY, UH, THE PATIO SPACE AND EVERYTHING. WE WORKED HARD WITH H D R C TO ACHIEVE. IT SEEMS THE SOLE CONSIDERATION FOR THE APPLICANT HERE IS TO SUPERSIZE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROSARIO'S. WE UNDERSTAND THAT LISA LIKES LARGE RESTAURANTS, BUT THIS 20,000 FOOT OF SPACE WOULD BE PROBABLY CLOSE TO SEVEN TO 750 SEATS, UH, WHICH WOULD IS QUITE LARGE. IN SHORT, THERE'S AMPLE ROOM FOR A WONDERFUL DESIGN FOR ROSARIO'S ON THEIR CURRENT SITE WITHOUT DEVASTATING THEIR ADJOINING BUSINESS, WHICH IS MAVERICK. WE ARE RESPECTABLY REQUESTING THIS CASE BE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DATE TO ALLOW FOR DIALOGUE AND EFFORTS TOWARDS A BETTER DESIGN SOLUTION. AND MAKING THIS REQUEST. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO INFORM OR WORK WITH MAVERICK ON ITS PLANS OR ADDRESS ANY OF OUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU MR. LEY. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. , WE ALSO HAVE, UM, DO YOU NEED ME OR NO, WE'RE, WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. BYE-BYE. FOR ITEM 21, UM, WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM LISA LIND AGAIN. JESS, ARE YOU THERE WITH LISA? I AM. UH, LISA LYNN DOWN THE LINE FROM K W A. LISA, GO AHEAD. OKAY. CAN YOU RUN, I HAVE THREE LETTERS IN FRONT OF ME AND THEY DON'T SAY WHAT CASE 21 IS. CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN THAT IS? SURE. 1 31 30 CROFTON. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. DEAR COMMISSIONERS, THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND CONCURS WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AND STIPULATIONS. HOWEVER, WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE FOLLOWING ISSUES BE ADDRESSED WITH THE O H P PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL. NUMBER ONE, A VERY LARGE TREE SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS APPEAR TO LIE WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE ADDITION. IF SO, THE ADDITION SHOULD BE RECONFIGURED TO PRESERVE THE TREE. NUMBER TWO, WINDOWS SHOULD BE ADDED TO BREAK UP THE 24 FOOT SOUTH SPACING WALL. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, BRINGS US TO ITEM 23, I BELIEVE 5 47 DONALDSON. UM, THIS COMES FROM DREA GARZA MONTICELLO FROM THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THE M P N A SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS REGARDING THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 5 47 DONALDSON AVENUE BUILT IN 1938. THE PHOTO OF THE FRONT FACADE IN THE HOME IS STAMPED COPYRIGHT 2017 SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF REALTORS. IT DOES NOT REFLECT AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE HOME IN ITS CURRENT CONDITIONS. FOUNDATION WORK WAS PERFORMED ON THE STRUCTURE WITHOUT A C O A OR CITY PERMITS, WHICH DESTABILIZED THE EXTERIOR MASONRY BREAK ON THE SOUTH, EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS OF THE HOME. AS UN PERMITTED WORK CREATES MORE THAN SEVEN THREE TO FOUR FOOT IN LENGTH STAIR-STEP CRACKS ON THE CORNERS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS. SIGNIFICANT SEPARATION RESULTED AT THE CRACKS ALONG THE MORTAR JOINTS RANGING FROM ONE TO THREE INCHES. THE BRICK EXTERIOR WALLS BOW RESULTING IN SEPARATION OF THE FIRST FOUR WINDOWS, UM, ON THE SOUTH FACADE, AND CREATED LARGE VOIDS OF SIX TO 10 INCHES ON THE EAST EL ELEVATION. THE DAMAGE RESULTED IN A TEMPORARY BRACING TO KEEP THE BRICK FROM FALLING ONTO THE ADJACENT HOME. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO CODE ENFORCEMENT'S DRIVE TEAM IS MONITORING THE SITUATION AND FENCE NOW SURROUNDS THE PROPERTY. IN THE PAST [00:35:01] TWO WEEKS, WORK HAS COMMENCED AND IT'S ESTIMATED 85% OF THE BRAKE HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED FROM THE FRONT ELEVATION. RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN ONSITE VISIT TO THE HOME TO SURVEY THE FULL SCOPE OF WORK. UM, ALSO APPROVAL SHOULD BE WITHHELD UNTIL THE DAMAGE OF THE EXTERIOR MASONRY IS REMEDIED. AND OTHER NON C O A WORK PERFORMED AS ADDRESSED. UM, REMOVAL OF THE SHUTTERS AND CHANGES TO THE COLUMNS, UH, AND CHANGES TO THE COLUMNS. N P N A REQUESTS O H P STAFF TO INCLUDE PERTINENT CASE INFORMATION WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON VIOLATIONS TO PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC AND H D R C. UM, AND ON THIS ONE, I WILL QUICKLY COMMENT THAT WE HAVE BEEN VERY INVOLVED. UM, THERE WAS A SOFTWARE ORDER, UM, THAT WAS POSTED, UM, MORE THAN A MONTH AGO. UM, THE CURRENT SCOPE FOR THE BRICK REPAIRS HAS BEEN APPROVED, AND SO WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING, UM, WITH THAT PROPERTY OWNER. AND SO THE REQUEST TODAY WAS ACTUALLY HELD UNTIL THAT BRICK ISSUE WAS, WAS RESOLVED WITH THE CERTIFICATE. UM, BUT I DO APOLOGIZE IF THERE WAS MISCOMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, MOVING TO, EXCUSE ME, WE HAVE TWO FOR 27. UM, THE FIRST COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS, UM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY CONCURS WITH O H P STAFF. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION 1109 WEST CRAIG PLACE MEETS CRITERIA THREE FIVE AND 13 AS DETERMINED BY STAFF AND THE OWNERS. THIS BEAUTIFUL CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW IS A RARE AND DISTINCTIVE EXAMPLE OF THE STYLE THAT DEFINES OF LYNN'S BEAUTY TO THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE APPLAUD THE OWNER'S EFFORTS TO RESTORE AND PRESERVE THIS UNIQUE COMMUNITY LANDMARK. UM, WE ALSO HAVE A VOICEMAIL FROM SIMA VIN FOR THIS ITEM. HOPEFULLY IT'LL PLAY. HI, THIS IS KOI CULVIN CALLING ON BEHALF OF THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 27 11 0 9 WEST CRAIG PLACE. DEAR COMMISSIONERS, WE ARE PLEASED TO SUPPORT EMILY TARAGO CHAVEZ AND JUAN CHAVEZ IN THEIR REQUEST FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION FOR THEIR HOME. WE ENCOURAGE PROPERTY OWNERS IN BEACON HILL TO PRESERVE OUR UNIQUE HOUSING STOCK BY SEEKING HISTORIC DESIGNATION, AND OUR MEMBERSHIP HAS VOTED TO SUPPORT THESE CASES. AS A MATTER OF COURSE, WE ARE PLEASED THAT THESE HOMEOWNERS CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THEIR HOME AND ITS HISTORY TO SEEK DECISIONS AND WE SUPPORT THOSE EFFORTS AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AS WELL. SINCERELY, CYNTHIA STEELMAN BAHANA, BOARD PRESIDENT. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND FINALLY, WE HAVE, UM, COMMENTS FOR ITEM 28 FROM PAUL KENON AND ANNA VISTA. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENCES RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION OF ACCESSORIES EASE MISS ALTO. WE WOULD REQUEST THIS CASE TO BE PULLED OFF THE H C R C CON CONSENT AGENDA TO ALLOW THE PROS AND CONS TO BE DISCUSSED. THE CONSTRUCTION METHODS USED TO BUILD THIS GARAGE ARE HISTORIC IN THEMSELVES. AT ONE POINT IN HISTORY, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THESE GARAGES IN MONTE VISTA. IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, WE HAVE LOST MANY OF THEM, MAINLY DUE TO, MAINLY DUE TO OWNER NEGLECT. THEY WERE MAINLY BUILT IN THE TWENTIES AND THIRTIES WHEN PEOPLE STARTED TO HAVE CARS IN MONTE VISTA. THEY HAVE, THEY WERE BUILT, UM, WITHOUT MUCH FRAMING OR INTERIOR, INTERIOR STUDS. IT WAS AMAZING TO SOME EXTENT HOW THEY WERE ABLE TO BUILD. AND THE REMAINING ONES THAT HAVE LASTED AS LONG AS THEY HAVE IT IS OUR OPINION. LOOKING AT THE PHOTOS AND BASED ON THE PAST EXPERIENCES, UM, THIS HISTORIC GARAGE OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CAN BE RESTORED, UM, WITHOUT TOO MUCH TROUBLE OR EXPENSE. WE WOULD HATE TO LOSE ANOTHER ONE OF THESE GARAGES. WE THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO RESTORE THE WALLS AND REPLACE THE ROOFING. THIS, THE NON HISTORIC GARAGE DOORS COULD BE REMOVED, COULD BE REMOVED, SO THE OWNER COULD HAVE COVERED PARKING FOR TWO CARS. RESTORING THIS GARAGE WOULD PROVIDE SOME VISUAL ARCHITECTURAL RELIEF TO AN OTHERWISE SEA OF PARKING PAVEMENT. WE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. UM, SO THOSE ARE THE COMMENTS FOR ITEMS ON CONSENT. UM, AFTER THAT, DO COMMISSIONERS WISH TO PULL ANY ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION? COREY, THIS IS, UH, I'M, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER, GO AHEAD. WELL, IT, IT WOULD, MY, MY REFERENCE WAS FOR 1 3 4 MISTO AND, UH, 7 2 2 ST. MARY'S. OKAY. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH I'D. I'D ALSO LIKE TO PULL ITEMS 2021 AND 28. SO I BELIEVE, UH, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ MENTIONED, I MENTIONED ITEMS FOUR AND 17 MM-HMM. . SO WE'VE GOT THOSE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS? UM, AND JUST NOTE THE, THE THREE THAT ARE IN BLUE, THOSE WILL BE MOVED TO THE VERY END FOLLOWING ITEM 46, BUT WE WILL DO ITEM FOUR FIRST. [CONSENT AGENDA] OKAY. MOTION TO APPROVE THE REST OF THE, UM, CONSENT AGENDA. DO YOU WANT ME TO LIST THE NUMBERS? UM, PLEASE DO. IT'S, UM, THREE THROUGH ONE ITEM NUMBER [00:40:01] ONE THROUGH THREE, FIVE THROUGH 16, 18 THROUGH 20 AND 22 THROUGH 27. YES. WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER SECOND. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS AS NOTED. UH, BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE, I DO WANT TO COMMEND MR. AND MRS. CHAVEZ FOR THEIR REQUEST TO, UH, SEEK HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THEIR PROPERTY AT 1109 WEST CRAIG PLACE. UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR, AS A, UH, CITIZEN SAN ANTONIO, FOR Y'ALL, UH, ACKNOWLEDGING THE HISTORIC NATURE OF YOUR HOUSE AND WANTING TO, UH, CELEBRATE IT. SO, UM, MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? ON THE, UH, CONSENT AGENDA? FERNANDEZ AYE. FISH? AYE. QUEZ AYE. AREOLA AYE. RUBE. AYE. ZER AYE. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. UM, SO FIRST WE'LL VISIT 1 34 WEST MISSILE TOE. I BELIEVE [4. 21-1911 Address/Description: 134 W MISTLETOE HDRC Case No.: 2021-056 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Lyndsay Thorn Request: Construction of an ADA ramp, exterior modifications City Council Dist.: 1] STEPH HAS THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. UM, THIS WAS PULLED FOR QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ. YES, I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT. LINDSEY, ON THE LINE. LINDSEY, CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF? YES. UH, LINDSEY THORN HERE. PHONE ARCHITECTS. YOU HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ. WELL, I, I'D LIKE TO HEAR, UH, FROM, FROM THE APPLICANT I COULD EXPLAIN, UH, WHAT, WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE SEEKING, THE REASONS WHY, UM, AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU FEEL THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE, PARTICULARLY TO THE CONCERNS THAT, THAT WERE RAISED BY. UH, COMMENTS. OKAY. WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT MOVING. WE, WE PUT A, A RAMPANT BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT MAY BE JUST EASIER WITH A RAMP THAN WITH THE STAIRS. UM, BECAUSE THEY WERE, THEIR OLD EXISTING STAIRS ON THE SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE WERE, UH, FALLING APART BASICALLY. UH, SO WE, WE JUST THOUGHT IT EASY RAMP IN, BUT WE CAN GO BACK WITH THE STAIRS. WE JUST, WE HAD A COUPLE MORE STEPS IN JUST TO MAKE THEM BRING DOWN TO LIKE A SIX INCH RISE. UM, WE WANTED TO MOVE THE DOOR BECAUSE WE WANTED TO ADD A, UH, THE GROUND FLOOR HAS A RESTROOM ADJACENT TO THE ONE, THE DOWNSTAIRS BEDROOMS. UM, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE SORT OF A, A TRUE SORT OF HALF BATH FOR THE LIVING ROOM AREA. AND SO WE WANTED TO ADD ONE. WE HAD THE KITCHEN DOWNSTAIRS AND WE WERE LOOKING AT ADDING A, UM, A A HALF BATH SORT OF RESTROOM ADJACENT OF ONE OF THE OPEN, OPEN PLAN AREAS THERE. BUT TO DO THAT, THE ONLY LOGICAL PLACE TO PLACE THAT WAS GONNA BE ADJACENT TO THE KITCHEN, UH, WHICH IS RIGHT WHERE THAT BACK DOOR IS. AND SO WE, WE, WE'VE SUBMITTED DRAWINGS TO MOVE THE DOOR TO THE OPENING WHERE ONE OF THE WINDOWS ARE CURRENTLY, THERE'S A PAIR OF WINDOWS JUST IN THE KITCHEN, SO THAT WE'VE JUST COME INTO THE KITCHEN FROM THE BACK DOOR. AND THEN WE COULD USE THE AREA WHERE, UH, WE HAD THE RESTROOM, UH, AND REPLACE THAT WITH A WINDOW. THE, THE WINDOW ASSEMBLY AROUND THAT DOOR IS REALLY, UM, IT'S BEEN, UH, SEVERELY MODIFIED IN THE APPEARS OVER THE YEARS. THERE IS A SEMI-CIRCULAR, UM, ROOF, ROOF STRUCTURE ABOVE THAT EXISTING KITCHEN DOOR, UM, WITH A, A ROOF LIGHT, WELL ALMOST A TRANSFORM WINDOW ABOVE, AND THEN ONE OFF TO THE SIDE AT SOME RANDOM HEIGHT. SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS TAKE THAT AWAY, IT DOESN'T FIT WITH ANY OF THE OTHER PROPORTIONS OR, OR ANY OF THE FENESTRATION ON THE HOUSE, AND ACTUALLY PUT IN A SINGLE WINDOW THERE BELOW THAT TO THAT RESTROOM. AND THEN JUST SIMPLY PUT THE WINDOW OR PUT, REMOVE THE DOOR, PUT THE DOOR IN THE, A NEW DOOR IN THE LOCATION WHERE THE EXISTING WINDOW IS IN THE KITCHEN. SO WE ACTUALLY CAN COME UP FROM THE BACK, THE BACKYARD UP INTO THE KITCHEN, UH, WITH A TRANSFORM ABOVE. IT'S JUST CLEANS UP THE WHOLE ELEVATION. AND I'M NOT SURE IF ANYBODY'S BEEN BY, BUT WE'VE PAINTED THE, UH, THE HOUSE NOW AND IT LOOKS, IT WAS ALL WHITE ON WHITE BEFORE IT WAS, UH, VERY, UM, VERY PLAIN AND, AND NOT, UH, NOT ONLY KEEPING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE'VE GONE BACK IN WITH A THREE TO FOUR TONE, UM, VICTORIAN COLOR SCHEME, AND IT LOOKS REALLY NICE NOW. SO, UM, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE JUST, THE OLD STEPS WITH DILAPIDATED, WE JUST THOUGHT MAYBE EASIER TO PUT A RAMP IN THERE, BUT WE CAN REBUILD THEM AND WE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT FUSSED. IF WE HAVE TO HAVE A RAMP, IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. WE CAN JUST PUT STEPS BACK IN. I'LL JUST ADD ANOTHER T THREAD TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT, UH, EASIER. UM, FOR THE, UM, THE, THE, THE RISE AND RUN WITH, WITH [00:45:01] RESPECT TO THE, THE CLOSURE OF THE DOOR, IS IT NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE DOOR? I MEAN, IN, IN THE IDEA OF, OF ADDING A DOOR THAT MEETS THE OF THE TWO WINDOWS FOR THE TRANSOM TO, TO BALANCE OUT THE, I GUESS THE EXISTING HEADER, UH, BUT NOW ON THE DOOR THAT, THAT IS, IS SEEN AS NOT, UM, NOT, NOT NECESSARY. IS, IS IT? UH, BECAUSE WHAT I'VE SEEN, UH, UM, THE COMMISSION MOST, UM, I LEAN TOWARD IS A, A DOOR REMAINING IS A DUMMY AND ON THE INSIDE SHEEP ROCKED OVER. SO IT'S NOT TO CREATE AN IRREVERSIBLE CONDITION. RIGHT. IS IS THERE A REASON WHY THAT DOOR WELL, SHOULD BE? YEAH, IT JUST, IT, IT JUST LOOKS TERRIBLE. I MEAN, I, I, I SIT ON THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FILE THE HEIGHT, SO I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH HISTORIC STRUCTURES, UM, BACK TO THE NORMAN PERIOD BACK IN BRITAIN. UM, I, I'VE GOT EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WITH, WITH THE STAR STRUCTURES LOOKING WITH APPROPRIATENESS, LOOKING WITH THE JUXTAPOSITION OF MODERN TO HISTORIC. UM, BUT THERE'S NO RHYME OR REASON. THEY SEEM TO HAVE ADDED THESE WINDOWS RANDOMLY. IT DOESN'T FOLLOW ANY TYPE OF RHYTHM OF THE EXISTING . UM, IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ORIGINAL, BUT, BUT IS THAT YOUR OPINION OF THE DOOR OF, OF THE DOOR THAT SEEMS TO BE CENTERED WITH? I MEAN, WE COULD, WE, WE COULD DO THAT. WE COULD LEAVE THE DOOR THERE AND THEN TAKE THE TUM ABOVE. UM, IF IT DOESN'T ALIGN UP, WE CAN PROBABLY KEEP THE, THE UPPER TRANSOM. BUT, UM, AND THEN TAKE OFF THE LEFT RANDOM WINDOW TO THE LEFT THAT THE BUTTS, THE DOOR FRAME AND WE COULD FIX IT. IT JUST, UM, IT, IT JUST WILL LOOK A LITTLE STRANGE, I THINK, UM, IN MIDAIR. UM, I JUST THINK THE WINDOW'S MORE APPROPRIATE BY THE TIME WE REPLACE THE SIDING. AND THEN IF YOU WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW IT WASN'T THERE. I MEAN, I, I THINK WE COULD SEAL IT FROM THE INSIDE. I, I TRIED THAT WITH SHEET ROCKING OVER WITH. YOU TEND TO BE, WE TEND TO HAVE ISSUES WITH SWEATING, UH, INCISAL CONDENSATION ON THE INSIDE OF, BECAUSE IT'S SINGLE PANE GLAZING ON THAT DOOR. UH, THAT'S ALWAYS TENDS TO BE A LONG TERM ISSUE OF SWEATING ALONG THE BOTTOM OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. UM, WE PUT, WE TRY TO PUT, WE PUT VENTILATION HOLES IN ON THE BACKSIDE TO TRY AND QUIT SOME AIR MOVEMENT FROM, UH, FROM ABOVE TO BELOW. BUT IT JUST, UM, AGAIN, IF IT, IT, I WOULDN'T EVEN DETAINED THE ISSUE IF IT, IT WAS A, I THOUGHT IT WAS, IT, IT WOULD, IT, YOU KNOW, UH, IT LOOKED RIGHT TO START WITH. IT'S JUST, IT, IT, THERE'S NO RELEVANCE AT ALL TO THE REST OF THE FENESTRATION, WHETHER, UH, DOORS OR, OR, OR WINDOWS, UH, IN, IN, ON THE, ON ANY OF THE FACADES. IT HAS NO RHYTHM. THERE'S NO, UM, THEY HAD THIS LITTLE TINY ROOM THAT HAD BEEN CREATED THAT WAS LIKE A LITTLE STORAGE ROOM IMMEDIATELY TO THE LEFT OF WHERE THAT, WHICH I GUESS THAT'S WHAT THE LOW WINDOW IS FOR. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY WOULD'VE KEPT IN THERE HOBBITS OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE THE THING WAS PROBABLY FOUR FEET HIGH. WHY YOU HAVE A WINDOW TO THAT ROOM? I HAVE, I HAVE NO CLUE. UM, LIKE, EXCUSE ME, THIS IS, I DON'T KNOW. EXCUSE ME. MR. THORN, THIS IS JEFF FETZER CHAIRMAN. UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS HERE. UH, YOU'RE WILLING TO MAKE SOME, UH, CONCESSIONS AND, AND REVISIONS, BUT, UH, RATHER THAN TRYING TO DESIGN THIS, UH, BY ZOOM, UH, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE SEND THIS TO A D R C WHERE WE CAN SPEND A LITTLE MORE TIME AND DISCUSS THE, UH, OPTIONS, UH, MORE THOROUGHLY. WITH YOUR PERMISSION, MR. CHAIR. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WELL, LET ME, WELL, CAN I, CAN I, CAN I RESPOND TO THAT PLEASE? YES. OKAY. SO, UH, HOW SO THE PROCESS OF THAT, WHEN WE'VE GO TO H C R C, IF THAT WE CAN MAKE AN AGREEMENT, UH, WITH MEMBERS H C R C MEET OFF THE SITE, UM, WOULD THAT THEN I WOULDN'T LET YOU TO COME BACK THEN. THAT WOULD BE THE END TO IT. THAT COULD ACTUALLY BE A FINAL THAT WE, IN COMPLETION, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT FAR OFF FINISHING THE HOME AND WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP THAT DOOR OPEN FRAME LONGER THAN WE HAVE TO. 'CAUSE WE USE THAT AS OUR ACCESS DOOR. WELL, TO, IF WE SEND THIS TO A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, THAT WOULD, UH, POTENTIALLY HAPPEN NEXT WEEK. AND THEN, UH, YEAH, THE, THE COMMISSIONERS WHO ATTEND THE D R C CANNOT MAKE A FINAL DECISION. THEY WOULD JUST MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN YOU WOULD COME BACK TO THE NEXT, UH, H D R C FOR FINAL RESOLUTION, WHICH WOULD BE NEXT MONTH. IT'D BE, IT WOULD BE MARCH 17TH. MARCH 17TH. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S NO PROBLEM AT ALL. OKAY. AND JUST FOR STAFF, UH, ARE COMMISSIONERS, UH, SUGGESTING A SITE VISIT HERE OR WOULD THIS BE NORMAL? D R C? THERE'S NO MOTION YET. UH, COREY, I'LL, I'LL BE PATIENT. YOU [00:50:01] HAVE A MOTION COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ? YES, I DOES MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS WOULD GO TO, UH, D R C. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. CAN I OFFER A FRIENDLY SITE VISIT? YES, SIR. YES. UH, D R C SIDE THIS MOTION. UM, I, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FIT. I SECOND, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO A D R C SIDE VISIT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ. AYE. FISH? AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. AREOLA? AYE. RU AYE THAT SIR? AYE, LA AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM ITEM [29. 21-1912 Address/Description: 337 E SUMMIT AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-032 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Samuel Asvestas/MONTE VISTA FOUNDATION INC Request: Roof replacement, window replacement City Council Dist.: 1] 29 3 37 EAST SUMMIT. UM, I BELIEVE RACHEL HAS THE APPLICANT AND THEN STEPHANIE'S GONNA BEGIN BY READING THE CASE INTO THE RECORD. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 29 HT R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 0 3 2. ADDRESS, 3 37 EAST SUMMIT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ONE, REPLACE THE EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF WITH A NEW STANDING SEA METAL ROOF AND A GAVE BALLOON FINISH. AND TWO, REPLACE 22 ALUMINUM WINDOWS WITH NEW, UM, BLACK ALUMINUM WINDOWS. ITEM ONE STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SHINGLE ROOF WITH A METAL ROOF BASED ON FINDINGS. A THROUGH D THROUGH REPLACEMENT OF THE ROOF IN KIND WITH NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. IF THE H D R C FINDS THAT A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF IS APPROPRIATE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE STANDARD STIPULATIONS FOR METAL ROOF SUPPLY AS LISTED IN THE RECOMMENDATION ITEM TWO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE WINDOW REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH B WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE REPLACEMENT PRODUCT MATCHES THE EXISTING PROPORTION, DIMENSIONS, CONFIGURATIONS, AND INSET OF THE EXISTING WINDOWS AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. EXISTING OPENINGS ON THE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT BE ENLARGED OR MINIMIZED TO ACCOMMODATE A REPLACEMENT PRODUCT. A WINDOW SCHEDULE AND DETAILED PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL THAT INDICATE ALL CONFIGURATIONS TO BE INSTALLED IN THE STRUCTURE. AND WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT, SAM, ON THE LINE TO DISCUSS SPECIFICALLY THE WINDOW MATERIAL OR NOT THE WINDOWS, THE ROOF MATERIAL CHANGE REQUEST. SAM? YES. HELLO, EVERYBODY. HEY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. YES, PLEASE. GO AHEAD. YES. OKAY. WELL, I, I, I PURCHASED THE HOUSE A FEW MONTHS AGO AND BE, BEFORE I PURCHASED IT, I, I, I MADE SOME PHONE CALLS DOWN TO YOUR OFFICE AND, UH, I WAS LED TO BELIEVE AT THAT TIME THAT, THAT I COULD DO A STANDING SEAM ROOF ON THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANY HISTORICAL VALUE AS LONG AS I CONFIRMED TO THE, TO THE, UH, UH, THE REQUIREMENTS THAT, THAT WERE, I THINK, I BELIEVE 18 INCH PANELS AND, AND, UH, NOT CHANGING THE ROOF LINE. UH, AND, UH, I, I THINK THAT WAS IT, SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE VENTS OR THE VENDING, AND I PRETTY MUCH AGREED WITH ALL THAT AND SUBMITTED, UH, MY PAPERWORK AS, AS WAS REQUESTED FROM ME. UH, SO I WAS HOPING WE COULD GET THAT APPROVED. THE OTHER REASON I'M, I'M LOOKING AT PUTTING A SOLAR PANEL IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE WHERE NO ONE WILL SEE IT, AND IT JUST MOUNTS UP A WHOLE LOT EASIER ON, ON A STANDING SEAM ROOF THAN IT DOES ON A, ON A, YOU KNOW, AN ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF. UH, THERE'S ALSO SEVERAL, UH, STANDING SEAM ROOFS RIGHT ON THAT BLOCK. UH, SO I MEAN, I WOULDN'T REALLY BE OUTTA CHARACTER. UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS THE ROOF OPENINGS, I'M GETTING THE, THE WINDOWS, UH, EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE AS THE ONES THAT WE'RE PULLING OUT. SO THERE WON'T BE ANY ISSUES ON THAT. AND AS REQUESTED, I WENT WITH THE BLACK ALUMINUM, UH, FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR OFFICER'S REQUEST. AND THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY ABOUT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS? WE DO NOT. OKAY. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, ARE, ARE THERE OTHER, UH, METAL ROOFS ON THE BLOCK? I THINK YOU'D MENTIONED A COUPLE. CAN YOU KINDA DIRECT OUR ATTENTION TO WHERE THOSE ARE? OR IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE THERE? I MEAN, THERE'S LITERALLY ONE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME. I, I UNFORTUNATELY AM OUT OF THE STATE AND I, I, I'M NOT, I'M ONLY HERE THROUGH AUDIO. UH, SO I, I I, I, I, I CAN, I CAN PROMISE YOU THOUGH, THAT THERE'S AT LEAST THREE, UH, OTHER HOMES THAT I'VE SEEN THAT HAVE THE, THE STANDING SEAM ROOFS. YEAH. AND THIS IS STEPHANIE. UM, YOU CAN SEE ON THE [00:55:01] G I S RIGHT HERE, THAT, UH, COPPER METAL ROOF, THAT'S ON A, A REVIVAL STRUCTURE. UM, LIKELY SOMETHING THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR AND IN THE PAST. BUT, UH, THAT FINDING, UM, B THROUGH D KIND OF SPEAK TO, UM, THE MID-CENTURY MODERN DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THESE CLUSTERS OF HOMES AND THE STANDING C OR THE SHINGLE ROOFS THAT ARE ON THOSE STRUCTURES, IF YOU WANNA REFER TO THEM THAT IT, THIS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, UH, I, I DON'T FIND THE, UM, UH, THE REQUEST OUT OF THE CHARACTER OF THE ARCHITECTURE. I, I'M, I'M THINKING THIS IS KIND OF A, A BIT OF A RANCH HOUSE, RIGHT? YES, SIR. A RANCH HOUSE. YES, SIR. IT, IT, IT IS WITHIN THE CONTEXT NOW. I DO, I DO WOULD SERIOUSLY RECOMMEND IT AGAINST THE USE OF A COLOR. I'M NOT SURE WHY, WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE COLOR OUTSIDE OF THE FACT THAT YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT THE, UM, THE IMAGE IN FRONT OF US IS THE COLOR THAN IT IS. RIGHT. BUT, BUT IF IT WAS A DARKER ROOF, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BECAUSE THEY USED A NATURAL MATERIAL THAT PATINAED. UM, I THINK IT'S VERY HARD TO GET A QUALITY COLOR. THE POWDER COATINGS ARE, ARE, ARE, ARE GOOD AND DURABLE AND ALL THOSE THINGS THAT, THAT, THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FROM MATERIAL. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE WAY THAT, THAT THEY REALLY JUST DON'T SEEM TO, UH, LIKE THEY'RE NOT DESIGNED NECESSARILY TO LOOK, TO GIVE THE LOOK OF, OF A, OF WHAT WOULD BE FOUND IN THE HISTORIC CONTEXT THAT JUST A SIMPLE GAL, GAL OR, OR A ATTEND, UH, STANDING SCENE, VERY LOW PROFILE, NO RIDGE CAP, UM, UH, WOULD, WOULD DO YOU JUSTICE, UM, IS YOU TAKE A, A BIG RISK WHEN YOU PUT THOSE, THOSE, THOSE OF LATE COMMERCIAL, UH, COLORED METAL ROOFS, THEY, THAT THEY, TO ME, THEY JUST, THEY TAKE SO MUCH AWAY. BUT I, I YIELD TO ACTUALLY, I'M INTERESTED IN WHAT COMMISSIONER FISH HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT. UM, I'M, I'M GONNA JUMP IN HERE. AS STAFF, WE ARE RECOMMENDING A STANDARD GLOO FINISH WITH, UM, ALL OF THE STANDARD STIPULATIONS. I THINK SOME OF THE CONFUSION CAME FROM THE COLOR REFERENCE TO THE WINDOWS, NOT THE ROOF. SO MR. VELASQUE, WE'RE RECOMMENDING EXACTLY WHAT YOU DESCRIBED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOUR, I I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION. UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU ARE, UM, RECOMMENDING THAT IN CASE WE FIND THAT APPROPRIATE IN YOUR STAFF COMMENTS. RECOMMENDATION IS JUST THE ONE ON THE RECORD, ON THE WEBSITE. DOES SAY THAT YOU RECOMMEND THE REPLACEMENT. I THINK STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING THE REPLACEMENT, BUT IF WE FIND IT APPROVED, IF WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE, THEN YOU'RE RECOMMENDING WITH STIPULATION. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. SO IT'S WRONG, RIGHT. JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A, IT WAS A TYPO, AN IMPORTANT TYPO. UH, AND I'M ALSO, UM, I'M, I'M IN SUPPORT FOR THE, UH, MOVE CHANGE. IS THAT A MOTION? YES. NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO COMMENT. YEAH, I CAN DO A MOTION, A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM ONE AND TWO WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ. I SECOND MR. CHAIRMAN FETZER. WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. CHAIRMAN? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. I THINK I, I THINK WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A ROOF, UH, MATERIAL CHANGE, UM, WE KIND OF HAVE TO LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY IN THE, THE STYLE OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND THE PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THERE'S EVIDENCE OF, OF A VARIETY OF ROOF MATERIALS ON THESE INCLUDING, UH, UH, GENERAL PATTERN OF METAL. SO I FIND IT APPROPRIATE, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT, THAT THAT ASSUMPTION THAT A, A CHANGE FROM SHINGLE TO METAL IS, IS ALWAYS APPROPRIATE. AND, AND TO ME, TO ME, I HAD TO STUDY THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT BEFORE I COULD ARRIVE TO THAT DECISION. YES, I WOULD CONCUR WITH, WITH YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. THAT IT, IT DEPENDS ON THE, THE STYLE OF THE HOUSE, WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT. UM, SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. GIMS. I'M SORRY. VELASQUEZ. AYE. AREOLA. AYE. RU AYE THAT SIR? AYE LA AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU EVERYONE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. FISH FOR PUTTING WORDS [01:00:01] TO MY MOTION. THANK YOU, . I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES. . OKAY. ITEM 30. UM, [30. 21-1914 Address/Description: 520 LEIGH ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-027 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: LABOR STREET COMMONS LLC Request: Construction of a multistory residential structure, site modifications City Council Dist.: 1] STEPH, DO YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT? UM, YES. EDWARD HAS THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. OH, I'M SORRY. AND I WILL START READING THE RECOMMENDATION. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 30, H D R C. CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 0 2 7. ADDRESS, FIVE 20 LAY STREET OR LEASE STREET. UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FINAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT THE LOT. ADDRESS FIVE 20 LEE STREET. SOME OF THE SCHEMATIC DOCUMENTS INCLUDE CONCEPTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT A NEW THREE STORY MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE IN THE CENTER REAR OF THE LOT, ADDRESS 6 0 6 TO 6 0 8 LABOR STREET, AS WELL AS RENOVATION WORK AND REAR ADDITIONS TO THE THREE ONE STORY. HISTORIC STRUCTURES ON THE SAME PARCEL, TWO OF WHICH ARE LOCATED ALONG THE LABOR STREET FRONTAGE. THESE SCOPES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT REQUEST. THE CURRENT REQUEST IS ONLY FOR THE TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS. A THROUGH R STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE H D R C ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE SITE ANALYSIS INCLUDING PHOTOS OF AREA STRUCTURES, LINE OF SIGHT STUDIES, PERSPECTIVES FROM BOTH LABOR AND LAKE LEE STREETS THAT SHOW THE HEIGHT AND THE SCALE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES VERSUS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS AND DOCUMENTATION INDICATING THE HEIGHT AND MASSING OF NEARBY STRUCTURES AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST. AS NOTING AND FINDING ARE TWO, THAT THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE BE REDUCED IN HEIGHT AND MASSING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT OR SUBORDINATE TO PRIMARY STRUCTURES. AS NOTED IN FINDINGS F AND G THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT UTILIZE FOUNDATION HEIGHTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AS NOTED IN BINDING I FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE ROOF FORMS THAT ARE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING HISTORIC CONTEXT. AS NOTED IN BINDING J FIXED THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE, UM, WINDOW SIZES AND PROPORTIONS THAT MODIFY THE OVERALL FENESTRATION PATTERN AS NOTED IN FINDING K AND THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE APPROPRIATE FRONT COURT FRONT PORCH MASSING IS NOTED IN FINDING L IF THE H G R C FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT AND RECOMMENDS FINAL APPROVAL, ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED ON AN AN ON AN ADJACENT PARCEL OR PARCELS IS NOT APPROVED AND REQUIRES A SEPARATE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. ANY APPROVALS ARE EXCLUSIVELY TIED TO THE DEVELOPMENTS ON THE PARCEL TRACT OR PROPERTY ADDRESS FIVE 20. LEE SCOTT, DO YOU WANNA INTRODUCE YOURSELF? YES. UH, MY NAME'S SCOTT JONES. I'M THE OWNER OF, UM, THE 6 0 6 AND 6 0 8 LABOR STREET PROPERTY. UH, THIS WILL BE MY, UH, PRIMARY RESIDENCE THAT, UH, I'M BRINGING FORWARD TO YOU. UH, WE DIDN'T QUITE MAKE IT ONTO THE LAST, UH, AGENDA. UH, I THINK WE WERE ONE OR TWO DEEP WHEN, UH, UH, WHEN WE, UH, WHEN YOU GUYS ADJOURNED, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. UM, WE HAVE SINCE MADE A BUNCH OF CHANGES, UH, TO MEET STAFF RECOMMENDATION. UM, WE'VE INCLUDED SITE ANALYSIS, UM, HEIGHTS OF, UH, THE DIFFERENT, UH, BUILDINGS NEXT DOOR, UM, AND ALSO SOME, UH, RENDERINGS THAT, UH, SIGHT LINE RENDERINGS FROM, UH, DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, UH, IN AN EFFORT TO, TO, UH, YOU KNOW, MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE D R C HAD GIVEN, UH, OR HAD SUGGESTED, UH, WHEN WE TALKED THE OTHER DAY. SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO, TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT WE CAN MAKE FIT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. UH, I'M LOOKING FOR YOUR, UH, APPROVAL ON THAT. THANK YOU. UM, I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE COMMENTS ON THIS, COREY. YES, WE DO. UM, FROM PATTY ZIONS, UM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO CONCURS WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DENY FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AT FIVE 20 LAY STREET, THE MASSING HEIGHT REFORMS OF FENESTRATION. DO NOT READ A SUBORDINATE AS A SUBORDINATE REAR STRUCTURE ON THIS LOT AND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH HISTORIC BUILDING PATTERNS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. CAN WE GET COMMENTS FROM THE D R C MEETING? UH, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. I WAS AT THE LAST D R C AND, UM, CONCERNS I HAD WERE THE PROXIMITY TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ON LEE STREET. UH, THIS TWO STORY STRUCTURE COMING UP VERY CLOSE TO THE ONE STORY STRUCTURE, UH, THE EXISTING HOUSE, UM, EVEN THOUGH THE, THE DRIVEWAY FOR THIS PROPERTY IS COMING OFF OF, UM, LABOUR STREET, UM, BUT THERE IS AN EASEMENT THAT CUTS THROUGH ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ON LEE STREET. AND [01:05:01] SO, UH, I EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE PROXIMITY AND, AND THE MASSING OF THE, OF THE, UH, PROPOSED STRUCTURE ADJACENT TO THIS ONE STORY, UH, PROPERTY. UH, THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER TWO STORY, UM, STRUCTURES AROUND THIS PROPERTY. UM, AND WE ASKED FOR, UH, INFORMATION ON THE HEIGHTS OF THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO, UH, COMPARED TO WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE. UM, LET'S SEE. I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ WAS ALSO ON THAT D R C. UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY? YES, SIR. UH, ONE OF THE THINGS I THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. ONE OF THE, UH, PROBLEMS WITH THE, WITH, LET'S NOT SAY THE APPLICATION, THE, IT, THE PROPERTY IS A VERY COMPLICATED PROPERTY. IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET YOUR HAND AROUND, RIGHT? YOUR, I MEAN, YOUR MIND AROUND HOW IT SITS, WHAT IT'S, WHAT IT'S RELATED TO. UM, SO WE SAW THE ELEVATIONS A SECOND AGO, BUT, BUT REALLY THE, THE, THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION IS HOW, HOW DOES THE ELEVATION RELATE TO THE NEIGHBORING ELEVATIONS? UM, AND, YOU KNOW, NOT ALL, UM, UH, PRESENTATIONS COME BEFORE US SHOW AN ELEVATION OF THE, OF THE PROPOSED ALONGSIDE OF THE ELEVATION OF WHAT IS EXISTING. AND IT WOULD PROBABLY A VERY COMPLICATED DRAWING TO BEGIN WITH, BUT THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES. WHAT, WHAT, UM, CHAIRMAN IS DISCUSSING IS, UH, THE RELATIONSHIP, I GUESS THE MASSING AS IT RELATES TO OTHERS, BUT I DO THINK IT'S WORTH WORTHY OF NOTING. SOMETHING THAT WE DID, WE DID KIND OF DISCUSS AS WELL WAS IN TERMS OF ITS STYLE AND, AND, AND THE TWO STORY MYTHS OF IT, RIGHT, IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE STREET AHEAD OF IT, THE MOUNT, UH, ZION STREET, I GUESS IT IS, UM, THERE'S DEFINITELY, UM, A ROW OF ECLECTIC ARCHITECTURE. SO WITH, WITH RESPECT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PATTERNS, I THINK IT GET, GETS US INTO MORE DIALOGUE WITH RESPECT TO, TO THE DESIGN, RIGHT, AS TO WHETHER IT, IT, IT IS WELL BALANCED AND PROPORTIONATE AND ALL THOSE THINGS, BUT, UH, I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE THAT IT'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT STYLE OR APPROPRIATENESS OF STYLE. I THINK IT'S MORE ABOUT, UH, ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE BUILDINGS AROUND IT IN THIS VERY WEIRD SITUATION, SITE SITUATION. YEAH, IT, IT'S A UNIQUE SITE AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT FIT, UH, WITHIN, UM, THE RECOMMENDATIONS. UM, I DID INCLUDE A TON OF RENDERINGS FROM DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS SO THAT YOU CAN GET A FEEL FOR THE MASSING. I DID PUT A SITE PLAN ON THERE THAT GIVES YOU THE EVE HEIGHTS OF THE BUILDINGS NEXT DOOR. UM, YOU KNOW, QUITE FRANKLY, IT REALLY IS A DIFFICULT, UH, SITE TO GET YOUR, YOU KNOW, WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND WITHOUT ACTUALLY WALKING IT, UM, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DIFFERENT ISSUES, UM, WITH BUILDING ON IT. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I WAS ALSO AT THE D R C, UH, WHEN REVIEWING THIS CASE. AND I, AND I WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR INCLUDING THE PROSPECTIVE RENDERINGS AT THE END OF THE APPLICATION. UM, I RECALL DISCUSSING THAT THERE IN NEAR PROXIMITY, THERE'S A TWO STORY, UH, PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND A TWO STORY, UH, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO THE EAST OF WHERE YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE. AND I THINK WE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED, UH, THE UNUSUAL POSITION OF THIS PARCEL IN THE BLOCK AND SOME OF, SOME OF THE ADJACENT HEIGHTS. I THINK IN PRINCIPLE, I DON'T, I DON'T, WE, THERE WASN'T A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT MAYBE THE RIDGE HEIGHT, BUT RATHER HOW THAT MASS IMPACTED A PARTICULARLY VIEW FROM LAY STREET, WHICH I THINK WE CAN SEE ON S UM, PAGE 31, SHE, I THINK IT'S, THIS IS FROM LA FROM LAY. I THINK ON THE TOP, THE TOP IMAGE THERE, UH, IS, IS, IS KIND OF REVEALING AND, AND IT, THE MASSING DOESN'T SEEM THAT INAPPROPRIATE HERE, BUT THE SHORTER ONE STORY STRUCTURE THAT FACES LAY IS THE ONE THAT IT ACTUALLY COMES PRETTY CLOSE TO THE CORNER, I THINK. I THINK IN THE D R C WE DISCUSSED IT MAYBE AT ABOUT 10 OR 12 FEET. UM, IF WE SHIFT DOWN TO THE OTHER VIEW FROM LAY STREET, THAT'S GONNA BE ON SHEET 30 AT THE TOP, I BELIEVE, AND TO THE APPLICANT, UH, THE, THE RENDER WE'RE LOOKING AT, THIS IS STANDING AT, AT KIND OF GROUND LEVEL FROM LAY, LOOKING BACK OVER THE, THE ONE STORY PRIMARY STRUCTURE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. OKAY. UM, THE ONE THING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DISORIENTING TO THESE IS THE, THE, [01:10:01] THE THREE STORY MASSES THAT ARE, THAT ARE SHOWN IN A FUTURE PHASE OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT AND THE BLOCKS THAT ARE ALSO SHOWN ON THE UNDEVELOPED PARCEL, UM, BECAUSE THOSE DON'T EXIST. SO IN THIS VIEW WHERE WE SEE THE THREE STORY STRUCTURE TO THE RIGHT SIDE, THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT'S ON THE TABLE TODAY, AND THAT'S NOT EXISTING. SO NO, NO POINT THAT OUT TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. UH, THE OTHER VIEW THAT I WANT TO KIND OF ASK YOU ABOUT IS FROM DIVINE, BECAUSE THE DEPTH OF THE PARCEL THAT YOU'RE WORKING WITH CUTS ACROSS A LOT OF REAR YARD SPACING FROM, UH, DI DIVINE STREET, AND THERE ARE TWO STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT FRONT THAT, UH, CAN YOU DIRECT US TO THAT VIEW? DO, DO YOU, UH, WHERE IT IS, IT HAS IT ON, I THINK STAFF HAS IT ON THE SCREEN, COULD, THAT'S GONNA BE SHEET 32. I CANNOT QUITE MAKE HEADS OR TAILS OF WHAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE. COULD YOU JUST ELABORATE WHERE THIS VIEW IS TAKEN FROM? WHICH SHEET? UM, I'M JUST LOOKING AT MY SCREEN HERE. UM, THERE'S GONNA BE A DELAY ON YOUR SCREEN PROBABLY, SO IT'S SHOWING UP IN THE P D F OF OUR DOCUMENTS ON 32. WELL, LET ME, LET ME HELP, MAYBE I CAN JUST GET AN ANSWER FROM YOU THIS WAY. MAYBE YOU UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER IF WE LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE ONE PAGE, ONE OF THE FIRST ONES. MM. THERE IT, YEAH, I'M LOOKING SOME THAT SAYS EXISTING. SO JUST TO BE CORRECT, THE TWO THAT SAY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, THOSE DO NOT EXIST OVER TO THE RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY. ARE WE TALKING ONE STORY OR TWO STORY RIGHT THERE? HAVE YOU VISUALIZED THAT THE COMMISSIONER, THE ONE JUST, SO THE, THE STRUCTURE THAT'S ON THE AGENDA TODAY IS THE ONE IN THE REAR THAT'S KIND OF DOUBLE HATCHED. SO THE STRUCTURE JUST TO THE NORTH OF IT, JUST TO THE TOP IS SINGLE STORY, THE ONE NORTHEAST OF IT, AND DO EAST OF IT. THOSE ARE BOTH TWO STORIES. THE, THE RENDERINGS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT ON SHEET 32 ARE, I BELIEVE THAT'S TAKEN FROM BEHIND THE PRIMARY STRUCTURES AND THE LOTS TO THE SOUTH, WHICH THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE KIND OF CUTTING INTO A SERIES OF BACKYARDS. AND UM, THAT'S ONE OF THE ELEVATIONS I THINK WE ASKED FOR IN THE D R C, WHICH IS THE VIEW OF THE POOL FROM THE BACK. 'CAUSE THERE'S THAT, LIKE THAT LOW WALL TO THE RIGHT, IF YOU LOOKED UP AT RENDERING. YEAH. AND IF STAFF COULD PUT THE CURSE OR WHERE WE EXPECT THIS PERSPECTIVE TO BE FROM, IT WOULD BE MUCH LOWER ON THE SHEET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BACKYARDS TO THE BLOCK. MM-HMM. , IS IT, IS IT THAT ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING, IS IT THAT ONE THAT WE'RE SEEING ON IT SAYS BRIER YARDS FROM DIVINE? I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT'S IT. I THINK IT'S FROM, IF YOU LOOK AT, IF YOU LOOK AT 32, THERE'S TWO VIEWS, ONE DIRECTLY BEHIND AS IF YOU'RE STANDING DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE. UH, AND THEN THE BUILDING TO THE RIGHT IS THAT TWO STORY GARAGE NEXT DOOR. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE TOP ONE, THE BUILDING TO THE LEFT DOESN'T EXIST, AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S ALL FUTURE. IF YOU GO TO THE BOTTOM RENDERING, THEN WE'VE MOVED A LITTLE BIT TO THE EAST, SO YOU CAN SEE TO THE RIGHT IS THAT TWO STORY GARAGE STRUCTURE. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE DARRYL'S HOUSE TO THE LEFT, AND THEN THE THREE STORY ONE RIGHT NEXT TO MY HOUSE DOESN'T EXIST. UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. THAT'S WHAT I WAS, I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT, WHAT THAT VIEW IS SIGNIFYING KIND OF WHAT POSITION, BUT IT'S, I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT. UM, I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THIS READS AS A CONVENTIONAL REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO A PRIMARY STRUCTURE. YOU STILL HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT ITS ADJACENCY TO THE STRUCTURES TO THE NORTH, AT LEAST THE SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE TO THE NORTH. BUT MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE ON, ON WHERE WE ARE TODAY ON THIS. I, WELL, I STILL HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, THE PROXIMITY AND THE, THE MASS, UH, ADJACENT TO THE, UM, PROPERTY AT 5 22 LEE RELAY. UM, WE DON'T GET A, AND I APPRECIATE THE, THE RENDERINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, BUT WE DON'T GET A GOOD VIEW OF, IF YOU WERE STANDING, UM, ON THE GROUND WITH THE ONE STORY BUILDING [01:15:01] ON YOUR LEFT AND THE PROPOSED TWO STORY BUILDING ON YOUR RIGHT TO SEE HOW THE MASS DOES OR DOES NOT, UM, LOOM OVER THE, UH, ONE STORY STRUCTURE. SO, UH, A RENDERING, UH, OR AT LEAST AN ELEVATION IF YOU WERE STANDING IN THE DRIVEWAY, UH, OR THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY, UH, LOOKING EAST AT THE PROPOSED HOUSE AND THE EXISTING ONE-STORY HOUSE JUST, WHICH WOULD BE JUST TO YOUR LEFT. UH, WE DON'T GET A GOOD VIEW OF THAT, UH, RELATIONSHIP, IN MY OPINION. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. I KIND OF AGREE. UM, WHAT'S THE LOT COVERAGE FOR FIVE 20 TO THE APPLICANT? UH, IT'S 42%, I THINK. AND THAT'S BECAUSE YOU INCLUDE THAT LITTLE DRIVEWAY DOWN AT LOT SIZE, THE SIX FOOT? YEAH, IT'S ALL, IT'S ALL ONE. IT'S ACTUALLY ALL ONE PARCEL. SO WITH THE DRIVEWAY, WITH THE DRIVEWAY, THE TWO HOUSE OR THE THREE HOUSES THAT ARE EXISTING AND INCLUDING, UH, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE THREE, IT'S 42%, I THINK. SO YOUR LOT COVERAGE INCLUDES ALSO THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, EVERYTHING. YES. YEAH. OKAY. SO HOW COME WE CAN LOOK AT THIS CASE INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT THE WHOLE THING IF IT'S ONE PERSON? UH, THAT WAS PROBABLY MORE QUESTION TO STEP. I KNOW THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS ON IT IN THE CASE. YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR. UM, WE HAVE THE FULL SITE PLAN, AND SO THAT'S THERE FOR CONTEXT, BUT ONLY THE, THE PART THAT'S IN THE REAR TO BE CONSTRUCTED IS WHAT IS ON TODAY'S AGENDA. AND IF THERE IS CONCERN WITH THAT, THEN THAT'S VALID CONCERN AND THAT CAN BE PART OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE DECISION MAKING. WELL, YEAH, THAT IS A BIG CONCERN OF MINE BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE WE CAN'T LOOK AT SOMETHING INDIVIDUALLY, LIKE THAT'S ALSO BECAUSE THE TWO OTHER HOMES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT LOOKS WITH THAT, UH, WELL, THEY'RE GONNA BE, I MEAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAN, THEY'RE GONNA BE JOINED OR DEMOLISHED OR, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE INCREASED IN SIZE. SO THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF CHANGES THERE TOO. AND, UM, I THINK STAFF HAS A LOT OF STIPULATIONS ON THERE THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED EITHER, THAT I FEEL IS ALSO IMPORTANT. UM, SO JUST, I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE STIPULATIONS. SO I, I DO WANNA MENTION THAT ALL OF THE PROPOSED DEMOLITIONS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND ADDRESSED. UM, I THINK WHAT IS SORT OF ON THE TABLE HERE FOR THE APPLICANT IS THAT APPROVAL HERE MIGHT, UH, DISALLOW ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE. SO THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THE OTHER THINGS WE SEE ON THE SITE PLAN ARE GOING TO BE APPROVED. IT, IT IS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ IT, THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE, WE HAD NOTICED WAS THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT. SO WITHOUT CHANGING THAT PAGE THAT IF, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE, THE PATTERN THAT EXISTS, IF YOU LOOK AT 6 0 6, LOOK AT 6 0 8, HOW THEY, HOW THEY KIND OF BANG INTO 5 24. UH, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THEY FIRST HAVE TO GO THROUGH FIVE 20 AND THEN THEY, IT WOULD APPEARS TO BE AN EASEMENT OR I, I THINK IT'S THEIR PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WHY THERE'D BE A SLIVER LIKE THAT IF IT'S NOT AN EASEMENT, BUT IS IT NO, IT, IT IS PART OF THE PARCEL, BUT THERE'S, BUT, BUT IT DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE OF AN BECAUSE OF AN EASEMENT. DOES IT JUST, IT'S, IT'S JUST, OR MAYBE THERE WAS A FUTURE PLAN EASEMENT. IT'S ODD THAT YOU HAVE A LIKE THAT. YEAH, THAT'S SIX FEET ACTUALLY IS PART OF MY PARCEL. OKAY. OKAY. WELL, WELL IT JUST TO, TO ME IT SEEMS THAT THAT WHAT EMPOWERS THE PROPOSAL, WHAT EMPOWERS THE APPLICATION ARE THE UNIQUE CONDITIONS, NOT OF THE JUST THAT PROPERTY, BUT OF ALL OF THE SITUATION. 'CAUSE YOU CAN SEE, HOW DO YOU GET TO 6 0 6, RIGHT? HOW DOES THAT, THAT EXISTING CONDITION EXIST? THIS IS VERY SIMILAR IN THE WAY THAT YOU COME IN FROM, I, I GUESS IT'S A LABOR, UH, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE STREETS, BUT YOU KNOW HOW YOU'RE FROM, FROM HIS SITE PLAN, RIGHT? UM, SO I DON'T NECESSARILY, UM, AS SEE A, A CONDITION THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE VERY CONFUSING CONDITION THAT EXISTS THERE. UM, SO IT SEEMS THAT THAT CLUSTER OF PROPERTIES AND THEIR INTERACTION WITH EACH OTHER IS PART OF THE EXISTING WEIRDNESS OF THAT, OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, UH, AND AND I, I JUST KIND OF WOULD, WOULD ASK US IF, IF WE COULD LOOK AT THE, THE DRAWING THAT IS THE OVERALL SITE PLAN, RIGHT? UM, COULD YOU GET US THERE, COREY? DRAWING 29? YEAH. THAT, [01:20:01] THAT WHAT IS COMING BEFORE US A ACTUALLY I THINK DOES AND DISCLOSE THE, THE INTENT OF THE, OF THE PROPOSAL. SO I IMAGINE THAT WHAT WAS POSTED INCLUDES THIS DRAWING, RIGHT? THIS DRAWING WAS POSTED WITH THE APPLICATION. UH, AND, AND THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY COMMENTS I DON'T THINK THAT ARE ADDRESSING, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT ISSUE, RIGHT? THE ISSUE OF PLACEMENT BASEMENT, IT, UM, SO I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S RISKY. I THINK IT'S RISKY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT SEEMS TO BE PROPOSED, UM, RESPONSIBLY. AND, UM, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON NOT TO EMPOWER OUTSIDE OF THE VERY SPECIFIC CONCERNS THAT, UH, CHAIRMAN SPOKE ABOUT, WHICH ARE REALLY RELATED TO THE MASSING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE BUILDINGS NEXT TO IT. UM, I, I ALSO APPRECIATE THE VERY COMPLICATED, I'D HATE TO BE THE ONE THAT PUT UP THOSE THAT, THAT THREE D MODELING. I, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DID THAT, THAT, THAT THAT'S, YOU, YOU SHOULD, YOU SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR, FOR FIGURING OUT HOW TO DISPLAY THAT. UM, UM, BUT I MEAN, I, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO STOP THE PROJECT IF IT'S NOT OUT OF DIRECT, UH, RELATIONSHIP TO THE, THE PROXIMITY FROM ONE BUILDING TO ANOTHER. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT STILL HERE ON STIPULATION NUMBER TWO THAT'S LISTED THERE, THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSED STRUCTURE BE REDUCED HEIGHT AND MASS CONSISTENT WITH REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND SUBORDINATE TO PRIMARY STRUCTURES, WHICH IS HOW WE'RE GENERALLY REVIEWING THESE. ALTHOUGH THIS IS PRETTY DEEP IN THE LOT. UH, DOES STAFF HAVE A, A POSITION ON, ON WHICH STRUCTURE WOULD BE THE PRIMARY STRUCTURES OR STRUCTURE THAT, THAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE RESPONDING TO? I THINK IN THE CONTEXT, WE'RE REFERRING TO THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE SITE. SO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURES AS IN VIEWED FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE EXISTING ON THE FAR LEFT OF YOUR SCREEN, WHICH ARE ONE STORY. UM, ORIGINALLY THIS SITE FEATURED SIX ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND USUALLY BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE DISTRICT, AS YOU SEE TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY, UM, YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, SHORTER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AS YOU GET DEEPER INTO THE LOT. SO THAT'S THE PRE, UH, PRECEDENCE WE'RE REFERENCING. ALTHOUGH IT IS UNUSUAL, OH, TH THAT THIS IS VELASQUEZ, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY, WHY I THINK THAT, THAT IF YOU LOOK AT MOUNT MOUNT ZION STREET, WHICH IS THE STREET, RIGHT? OVER ALL, ALL OF THOSE, ALL OF THOSE, UM, UM, I THINK BASIC, UM, UH, UM, OR, OR THE, THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE GUIDELINE, RIGHT? THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN BROKEN AND, AND, AND, AND THE END RESULT, I THINK THOUGH IS VERY CREATIVE, VERY ARCHITECTURAL RESULT FOR THE, FOR THE LANDSCAPE THERE, RIGHT? FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPE. SO THIS FOLLOWING THAT TREND, I THINK THAT IT CREATES A VERY, UM, EVOLVED, UH, A DIFFERENT WAY TO LOOK AT WHAT'S THERE. UM, UH, THAT, THAT'S WHY WHEN WE HAD THE D R C, THE THING THAT REALLY CATCHES THE EYES IS REALLY ABOUT PROXIMITY, BUT IT ALSO MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO KIND OF HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WHITE NOISE IN TERMS OF, UH, OF WHAT, WHAT WAS THERE, RIGHT? ORIGINALLY, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY CONTRADICTIONS IN THAT CORNER OF THAT, OF THAT, UH, UH, COMMUNITY. UH, SO REALLY THE THING THAT STANDS OUT AT PXI, COULD I, UH, SAY SOMETHING OR INTERRUPT HERE FOR A SECOND? UM, ONE OF THE REASONS I'M, THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE, UH, SITUATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS AND, AND ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THEM. UM, BUT THIS PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY, ON ONE SIDE, A CONVENIENCE STORE, AN ART, A BEAUTIFUL ART DECO CONVENIENCE STORE, WHICH HASN'T BEEN REDONE YET. ACROSS THE STREET IS A CLINIC, UH, BUILT PROBABLY IN THE SIXTIES OR SEVENTIES. AND THEN, UH, DARRYL'S GOT A VERY NICE, UH, MODERN TYPE HOME, YOU KNOW, WITH LIKE A 35 FOOT EVE ON IT TO THE SOUTH, AND THEN TO THE SOUTH OF THAT IS THE SHRIMP BUILDING, WHICH IS VERY UNIQUE. UM, SO THIS LITTLE POCKET HERE IS JUST VERY UNUSUAL. AND IF YOU GO ACROSS LAY STREET, YOU GET ALL OF THOSE TWO AND THREE STORY, UH, UH, NEWER HOMES. AND I, I RECOGNIZE THAT THEY ARE NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, BUT IT CREATES A REAL UNUSUAL, YOU KNOW, POCKET OF, OF, UH, PROPERTIES, VERY ECLECTIC POCKETS. AND, UH, SOME, I UNDERSTAND THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND EVERYTHING, UM, BUT I DON'T REALLY FEEL LIKE WHAT I'M TRYING [01:25:01] TO DO HERE IS REALLY OUTSIDE OF WHAT, WHAT'S GOING ON ALL AROUND IT. UM, AND THAT'S WHY I'VE DESIGNED IT THIS WAY, I GUESS. SO, UH, AND I, YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW IT'S REALLY TOUGH TO LOOK AT A SITE PLAN AND NOT WALK AROUND THE, THE LOCAL AREA AND NOT GET A FEELING FOR, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S ACTUALLY THERE. UM, BUT THIS LITTLE CORNER HAS A LOT OF COMMERCIAL STUFF ON IT. UM, A VERY ECLECTIC, SO THANK YOU. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. ONE MORE TIME. QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, HAS THIS RECEIVED CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL TODAY? NO. UM, THIS REQUEST INITIALLY WAS REVIEWED, UM, TWO YEARS AGO, UM, AND THEN DIDN'T RETURN, BUT IT'S BEEN ON OUR DEVELOPMENT FROM THAT TIME. AND THE APPLICANT IS WISHING SPECIFICALLY TO GET FINAL APPROVAL JUST FOR THE TWO STORY STRUCTURE. SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. I DO FEEL LIKE SOME OF THE STIPULATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED SPECIFICALLY ON FENESTRATION, AND, AND I THINK THE MASSING IS AS COMMISSIONER, UM, OUR CHAIR SAID. SO I MEAN, UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS ANYTHING, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY WE NEED ANOTHER DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, BECAUSE I MEAN, I DO NOT WANNA, I DON'T THINK IT'S ENOUGH TO APPROVE A FINAL AND CONCEPTUAL, I DON'T FEEL CONFIDENT ENOUGH YET THIS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ IN, IN, IN RELATION TO A D R C, YOU KNOW, STUDYING THE, THE, THE AREA, IF THERE WAS A D R C, IT WOULD SEEM THAT IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT IT'S AT THE SITE, AND THAT COULD BE, THAT COULD BE. IS THAT A MOTION? WELL, I, I, I, I, I KIND OF FEEL THAT THE COMPLEXITY OF IT WOULD CREATE KIND OF A RABBIT HOLE THAT, THAT IN A WAY IT'S, IT TO ME IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE DECISION FOR WHAT EMOTION SOUNDS LIKE OR LOOKS LIKE IS MORE RELATED TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT. THE THE OTHER AREAS ARE VERY, YOU KNOW, THE AREAS THAT HE'S DISCUSSING. THE PROXIMITY IS THE, IT'S A VERY WEIRD, BEAUTIFUL, UH, AND SETTING A NEW VOCABULARY FOR, FOR, FOR WHAT IS THE ARCHITECTURAL LANGUAGE NOW IN THAT AREA. I THINK HE'S WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THAT. I, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, APPROVE AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. UM, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ARLA, WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY, UH, FURTHER DISCUSSION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK I'M PREPARED FOR, UH, AN TO SUPPORT A MOTION OF APPROVAL I SUBMITTED. I THINK THAT, UH, THERE ARE REMAINING CONCERNS. I THINK I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WITH SOME OF THE STIPULATIONS HERE, SHOULD THIS MOTION FAIL. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? UM, I, I WONDER IF, IF COMMISSIONER FISH WOULDN'T, UM, CONSIDER, UH, AMENDING, UH, REQUESTING FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS TO THE MOTION THAT IT MIGHT ENABLE THE PROJECT TO ROLL AS OPPOSED TO STOP AND THEN WE CAN, WE CAN, UM, DEAL WITH THE OUTSTANDING ITEMS IN THAT MOTION. SO, SO I BELIEVE YOUR MOTION WAS FOR FI FOR FINAL APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. I, I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF A MOTION THAT, THAT GRANTED CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WITH STIPULATIONS 1, 3, 4, AND FIVE AND MODIFIED STIPULATION TO THE APPLICANT CONTINUE TO EXPLORE, UH, REDUCTION IN PERCEIVED MASSING FROM THE LACE, FROM THE LACE STREET DIRECTION, PARTICULARLY AS IT IMPACTS THE SINGLE STORY HISTORIC STRUCTURE THAT'S VERY CLOSE TO IT. SO I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY TOO FAR APART FROM WHERE YOU ARE FOR THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ASK. SO THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MOTION. HOW DOES THAT WORK? WELL, WELL LET'S, THIS IS THE CHAIRMAN. THIS IS THE CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE A SIMPLE MOTION ON THE TABLE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE, SEE HOW IT GOES. AND THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S AN ALTERNATE MOTION IF THIS ONE DOESN'T PASS. UM, MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ [01:30:01] NAYYY FISH NAYYY. UM, WE'VE BEEN JOINED BY COMMISSIONER GIBBS. UM, I ABSTAIN. I WASN'T IN, IN FOR THE FULL CONVERSATION, SO I ABSTAIN. GREAT. VELAZQUEZ AYE. AREOLA AYE GROUP NAYYY BETTS NAY LIFO NAYYY. MOTION FAILS. THE MOTION FAILS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I MOVE FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS 1 3 4 5 AND MODIFICATION OF STIPULATION TWO THAT DIRECTS THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE TO EXPLORE, RECEIVE REDUCTION IN MASS FROM, FROM LAY STREET AS IT RELATES TO THE SINGLE HISTORIC STRUCTURE TO THE NORTH. THIS IS COMMISSIONER ON THIS I SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND AS NOTED. ANY DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. HERNANDEZ AYE FISH? AYE. UM, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER GIBBS WILL ABSTAIN QUEZ AYE. AREOLA AYE RUB? AYE THAT SIR? AYE, AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. [31. 21-1915 Address/Description: 324 E ROSEWOOD AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-033 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Matt Bishop/BEXAR DIVERSIFIED MF-1 LLC Request: Tile-to-shingle roof replacement City Council Dist.: 1] OKAY, ITEM 31. RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? YES. AGENDA ITEM 31 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 0 3 3 3 24 EAST ROSEWOOD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE THE EXISTING TILE ROOF WITH A COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH B STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE ROOF IS REPLACED WITH IN KIND MATERIALS OR MATERIALS SIMILAR AND APPEARANCE TO THE EXISTING TILE. IF THE H D R C FINDS ROOF REPLACEMENT WITH COMPOSITION SHINGLES APPROPRIATE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION, ONE THAT THE REPLACEMENT COMPOSITION SHINGLES ARE SIMILAR IN APPEARANCE TO THE EXISTING TILE AND ARE VERIFIED BY STAFF. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, AND TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THE EXISTING RIDGE DETAILING AND THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER MATT BISHOP, IS ON THE LINE. UM, MATT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN YOUR REQUEST? SURE. UH, AND THANKS RACHEL. I, UH, I THINK IT'S ALL, IT'S ALL IN MY APPLICATION. THE, THE BUILDING IS, UH, I THINK IT'S A SIX UNIT OLDER MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY. THE, THE EXISTING TILE SHINGLES. I'VE GOT SOME PHOTOS THERE ARE, THEY'RE KIND OF STARTING TO FALL OFF ON THAT SMALL ROOF ON THE FRONT. AND WHAT, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS IT'S, IS, IS REPLACE 'EM WITH SHINGLE ROOFS. I'VE SUBMITTED, UH, ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION PHOTOGRAPHS OF SIMILAR BUILDINGS. THIS, THIS BUILDING AND, AND Y'ALL PROBABLY KNOW WHERE IT IS, THE AREA, IT'S OVER BY TRINITY. THERE'S TWO STREETS RIGHT THERE BETWEEN MCCULLOUGH AND SHOOK ELLWOOD AND, AND ROSEWOOD THAT THEY'RE SORT OF MIXED WITH MULTIFAMILY AND, AND, AND SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES. UH, AND THOSE ARE SORT OF THE, THE STREETS THAT I LOOKED AT JUST BECAUSE THOSE ARE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE SIMILAR AND SORT OF LITTLE, UM, I GUESS A POCKET WITH A BUNCH OF MULTIFAMILY. ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THE OTHER STONE BUILDINGS HAS SHINGLE ROOFS ON IT. I'VE SUBMITTED PICTURES AND I, I I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PICTURES I'VE SUBMITTED. THREE DOZEN, FOUR DOZEN. UM, I I THINK THERE MAY BE ONLY ONE OTHER BUILDING ON THAT ENTIRE STRETCH IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS A TILE ROOF. SO IT CERTAINLY IS NOT GONNA LOOK OUT OF PLACE, UH, REPLACED BY TILE ROOFS. UM, I, I WAS ASKED WHAT, WHAT KIND OF SHINGLES I, I WAS GONNA PUT, YOU KNOW, AND I SAID, LOOK, I I DON'T WANNA DO WHATEVER COLOR YOU WANT, WHAT WHATEVER YOU THINK IS, IS MOST APPROPRIATE. THERE'S ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT COLORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, IN, IN ANY EVENT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE NEED TO DO SOME, SOME ROOF REPAIRS AND WANTED TO DO IT WITH SHINGLES. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO, WE DO NOT. OKAY. UH, A QUESTION, UH, MR. BISHOP, UM, WOULD YOU, IF THE COMMISSION, UH, WOULD APPROVE, UH, CHANGING TO SHINGLES, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO, UH, KEEP THE RIDGE DETAILING AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF? UM, I, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY THAT. WELL, LIKE ON THE LITTLE FRONT PORCH ON THE, UH, THE RIDGE THAT'S SLOPING DOWN, THERE'S A BARREL DO BARREL TILE, UH, EXISTING. [01:35:01] WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PUT THO THOSE BARREL TILES, SALVAGE THEM, UH, AND PUT THEM OVER A SHINGLE ROOF? UH, WELL, MAYBE NOT SALVAGE THOSE. MAYBE JUST REPLACING, LIKE CREATING THAT AGAIN, CREATING IT, YEAH. IF THEY'RE NOT SALVAGEABLE, GETTING SOME THAT MATCH, BUT KEEPING THAT SAME DETAIL ON THE, UH, THE, UM, ANGLED RIDGE ISN'T AT THE RIDGE AT THE TOP OF THE ROOF BECAUSE THAT IS A, A CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURE OF THIS PARTICULAR ROOF. I, I, I MEAN, I, I, I SUPPOSE SO. I MEAN, I, I CAN MY ROOFER DO THAT. I, I DIDN'T, I HAVEN'T ASKED HIM SPECIFICALLY. I CAN ASK GILBERT. I DON'T, I MEAN, I'M NOT AGAINST IT, BUT I'M NOT A ROOFER MYSELF, SO I CAN THAT BE DONE. I GUESS IT COULD BE DONE. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S, IT'S, I'M LEADING TO A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. I'M JUST TRYING TO COUCH IT FIRST. UM, IT, IT'S RARE THAT IT'S RELATIVELY RARE THAT THE COMMISSION FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO REPLACE A TILE ROOF WITH, UH, ONE THAT'S LESSER. BUT IN THIS CASE, I THINK THE QUICK, THE CHARACTER OF THE TILE ROOF CAN BE RELATIVELY CAPTURED, CAPTURED PRETTY WELL, UH, WITH A DIMENSIONAL ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF OF SIMILAR, SIMILAR SCALE AND DEPTH. AND I CONCUR WITH THE, THE CHAIR THAT IT'S THE RIDGE DETAIL THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST CHARACTER DEFINING AND WHAT THAT TYPICALLY MIGHT LOOK LIKE. AND YOUR ROOFER, YOUR ROOFER CAN CERTAINLY, UH, REACH OUT TO STAFF ON HOW TO DO THAT. UM, IS THAT, THAT THOSE BARREL BARREL TILES ARE PUT OVER THE RIDGE OF THE SHINGLE A LITTLE BIT MORE LIKE DECORATION, NOT A TRANSITION FROM A TILE TO A SHINGLE ROOF. UM, BUT IT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT ALL THAT COMMON, BUT WE'VE, WE'VE SEEN IT DONE SUCCESSFULLY A NUMBER OF TIMES AND I WOULD BE COM CON COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO PURSUE THAT THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. I THINK ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, SUBMITTED PICTURES OF THE 3 23 EAST ROSEWOOD HAS ACTUALLY THAT DETAIL. MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN TAKE A KIND OF EXPIRATION FROM THAT. SO MAYBE WHAT WE CAN DO IS JUST KEEP THAT MOTION WITH THAT STIPULATION IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANY DIFFICULTIES FINDING A CONTRACTOR WHO WOULD'VE TO COME BACK, RIGHT? YEAH, POTENTIALLY. SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS ONE AND TWO. I'LL SECOND QUE SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AND HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE, FERNANDEZ? AYE ISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. QUEZ AYE. AREOLA AYE. GROUP? AYE BE AYE. LA AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, ITEM [32. 21-1916 Address/Description: 311 MUNCEY HDRC Case No.: 2021-053 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Anthony Chen/Aeonium Investments, LLC Request: Construction of a rear addition, exterior modifications City Council Dist.: 2] 32. EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? DO IT. JUST MAKE SURE YOU'RE MUTED. EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? YES, YES. SORRY, I WAS, I WAS ACTUALLY TALKING TO THE APPLICANT. GO AHEAD. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 32 HD AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 32 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 0 53 3 11 MUNCIE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL. TWO, ONE, MODIFY THE FENESTRATION ON THE NORTH ELEVATION BY INCREASING THE SIZE OF ONE ORIGINAL WINDOW OPENING, AND BY REMOVING TWO EXISTING WINDOW OPENINGS AT THE, AT A REAR ENCLO PORCH TO MODIFY THE FENESTRATION ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION BY REMOVING ONE WINDOW OPENING. THREE, REPLACE THE EXISTING WOOD FRONT DOOR AND FOUR TO CONSTRUCT A REAR ADDITION TO FEATURE 432 SQUARE FEET AT THE REAR OF THE STORAGE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT THREE 11 MUNCIE LOCATED WITHIN THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO REPAIR ALL WOOD WINDOWS, REPAIR THE STANDING SEA METAL ROOF, AND INSTALL A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF ON THE ADDITION STAFF FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE. FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORTH FACADE IS NOTED IN FINDING. B. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APP, THAT THE HISTORIC FACADE BE MAINTAINED AS IT EXISTS. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER TWO. FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS TO THE SOUTH FACADE IS NOTED IN FINDING. C STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE HISTORIC FACADE BE MAINTAINED AS IT EXISTS. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER THREE. DOOR REPLACEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE EXISTING DOOR BE REPAIRED AND FOR ITEM FOUR, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A REAR EDITION BASED ON FINDINGS G THROUGH J WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. [01:40:01] ONE THAT THE APPLICANT ENSURE A VISUAL BREAK IS PRESENT ON THE RIGHT, THAT IT IS THE NORTH ELEVATION TO SEPARATE THE ADDITION FROM THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. TWO, THE STANDING SEA METAL ROOF IS INSTALLED IN MATCH THAT OF THE PRIMARY HISTORIC STRUCTURE. THREE, THAT WINDOW OPENINGS THAT MATCH THOSE OF THE PRIMARY HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND PROFILE AND SIZE BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN THAT RECOMMENDS THAT AT LEAST TWO WINDOW OPENINGS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE RIGHT ELEVATION AND FORWARD THAT A WOOD WINDOW IS INSTALLED IN THE ADDITION THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND ADDITIONS. UH, LEE, IF YOU COULD START ON PAGE, UM, WELL THIS, THIS ACTUALLY WORKS. I HAVE THE APPLICANT MR. ANTHONY CHEN ON THE LINE. MR. CHEN, UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF? HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR, UH, THANK YOU FOR HEARING THIS. UM, YEAH, SO MR. CHEN, IF YOU WANNA, UM, START, UM, EITHER WITH THE FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED OR THE ADDITION, UH, WHICHEVER ONE YOU PREFER TO START WITH, UH, YOU CAN PRESENT AND, AND, UH, PRESENT THAT TO THE COMMISSION. SO, UM, JUST SO THAT WE'RE ON, ON THE SAME PAGE, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION NUMBER TWO, THE FENESTRATION MODIFICATION ON THE NORTH FACADE, THAT'S, UH, TALKING ABOUT MODIFYING THE AREA OVER THE FRONT PORCH. CORRECT. THE FENESTRATION MODIFICATION THAT IS ON THE NORTH FACADE IS ACTUALLY, UM, LET ME FIGURE OUT WHICH PAGE THIS IS ON COMMISSIONERS WHILE EDWARDS LOOKING FOR THAT. UM, JUST TO NOTE, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE, UH, THIEF STEP AWAY FROM THE SCREEN FOR A FEW MINUTES, SO WE'RE DOWN TO SIX. IF ANYBODY ELSE NEEDS A BREAK, UH, PLEASE JUST LET ME KNOW FIRST SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE WE MEET FORM. SO I'M LOOKING AT, UH, PAGE, THAT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY MR, MR. CHEN, I'M SORRY. UH, I THINK YOU MAY HAVE SAID FRONT PORCH, BUT ACTUALLY REAR PORCH. UH, SO COMMISSIONERS, UH, IF WE, IF YOU COULD GO TO PAGE 30. SO THE STRUCTURE CURRENTLY FEATURES AN EXISTING REAR EDITION. THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT, OR EXCUSE ME, AN ENCLOSED REAR PORCH. THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT A REAR EDITION THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE MODIFICATION TO THE NORTH SIDE ELEVATION, UH, THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF THESE TWO WINDOWS THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR PORCH. UH, GIVEN THAT, THAT'S A PORTION OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE, AND IF YOU REFER, WE, IF YOU CAN GO TO PAGE, UH, IF YOU GO TO PAGE 10, WE CAN SEE THAT ON THE RIGHT ELEVATION, UH, THAT PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE ISN'T IMPACTED BY THE REAR ADDITION. UH, SO ESSENTIALLY THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE ENCLOSURE OF THE ENCLOSING OF TWO WINDOW OPENINGS THAT ARE ON THE SIDE ELEVATION. UH, THAT WOULD NO LONGER BE, BE VISIBLE OR THAT WOULD NO LONGER EXIST, UH, IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTING THAT REAR ADDITION. UM, THAT'S, THAT'S IN REGARDS TO THE FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE ON THE NORTH FACADE. UH, EDWARD. NOW THE PICTURE IS FROM THE INTERIOR AND IT SHOWS THE EXI, THE, IT SHOWS THE ORIGINAL WOOD. I GUESS THAT WOULD'VE BEEN OUTSIDE AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER. E EXCUSE ME. UH, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ? YES, SIR. UH, LET'S LET THE APPLICANT MAKE HIS PRESENTATION WITH STAFF CLARIFICATION, AND THEN WE DO HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS. OKAY. AND THEN WE CAN GET TO QUESTIONS. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. SO, UM, I'M, I'M REALLY SORRY. I'M, I'M VERY NEW TO THIS. UM, I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS THE ENCLOSURE OF THE WINDOWS. UM, EDWARD, WERE YOU, UH, DISCUSSING THE, UM, THE TWO WINDOWS ON THE RIGHT ELEVATION, UH, THAT I'M PROPOSING TO CANCEL THOSE TWO, UH, WINDOWS ON THE RIGHT ELEVATION CLOSEST TO THE, UM, TO THE ADDITION? YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. UM, OKAY, SO THAT'S ON, I'M JUST, I'M TRYING TO THINK. SO ON THE RIGHT ELEVATION. ALRIGHT, SO THOSE ARE GONNA BE ALL, UM, THE ONES IN THE BACK ARE GONNA BE COVERED BY THE ADDITION. THE ADDITION'S GONNA BE A PROPOSED MASTER BEDROOM. UM, THE TWO WINDOWS THAT I'M PROPOSING TO CANCEL WERE WINDOWS THAT WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE WERE NOT HISTORICAL WINDOWS. THOSE TWO WINDOWS WERE ALUMINUM WINDOWS THAT WERE, I GUESS, BROUGHT IN AT A, AT A, AT A LATER TIME. UM, AND WHAT I'M PROPOSING TO DO IN THAT AREA IS THAT'S GONNA BE MY KITCHEN. I WAS PROPOSING TO USE THAT AREA AS A PANTRY AND I WAS WANTING TO CANCEL THOSE TWO WINDOWS TO, UH, ALLOW FOR BETTER FOOD PRESERVATION [01:45:03] AND COMMISSIONERS. IF YOU SEE THE PHOTO THAT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW, THERE YOU COULD SEE THE MODIFICATION THAT'S ACTUALLY AT THE REAR OF THE WATER HEATER CLOSET. SO RIGHT BEHIND, RIGHT BEHIND THAT WATER HEATER CLOSET IS THE, UM, IT IT IS IF ARE THOSE TWO WINDOWS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. OKAY. OTHER, UM, LET'S SEE, MODIFICATIONS TO THE SOUTH FACADE STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THOSE. WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING THERE? UM, SO I COULD, I CAN JUMP IN AGAIN TO KEEP US MOVING. UH, WE, IF YOU COULD GO TO, UM, PAGE, EITHER PAGE, UH, 12 OR 13. SO BENEATH THE GABLE THERE YOU SEE THE SQUARE VENT IN THE GABLE. SO BENEATH THE GABLE CURRENTLY THERE EXISTS, UH, A SMALL WINDOW THAT'S IN THE, IN THE BATHROOM A HALF WINDOW. THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED TO REMOVE THAT. UH, WE, IF YOU COULD FLIP BETWEEN PAGES 12 AND 13, UM, AND OPTION B, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED TO INSTALL A, A LONG, UH, CONTEMPORARY WINDOW, UH, ABOVE THE SHOWER, UM, ON THE LEFT ELEVATION. UH, IF YOU GO TO, UM, PAGE, PAGE 12, YOU SEE THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED THAT ANOTHER OPTION ON THE LEFT ELEVATION. THERE YOU GO. UM, THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY OPENING THERE AT ALL. UH, AND THEN FOR, UH, REFERENCE AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, UH, WE, IF YOU COULD GO TO PAGE 24, YOU'LL SEE THAT WINDOW OPENING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO REMOVE. UH, YES. SO, UM, THE, THE REASON WHY, UM, UH, PROPOSING MY, MY, MY, MY FAVORITE PLAN OF THIS IS OPTION B. UM, AND THE REASON WHY I'M, I'M PROPOSING TO DO THIS IS ONE, AGAIN, THE WINDOW THAT, UH, THAT IS IN THE SHOWER ROOM CURRENTLY ISN'T AN ALUMINUM, UH, IT'S AN ALUMINUM WINDOW. IT'S NOT, UH, IT'S NOT A HISTORICAL WINDOW. THIS IS WHAT IT WAS WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOME. UH, THE REASON WHY I AM PROPOSING TO HAVE, UM, THE LONG TRANSOM WINDOW IN THE SHOWER MADE OUT OF, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE MORE DURABLE MATERIAL IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, UH, THIS IS THE SHOWER ROOM. IT'S GONNA PROVIDE THE BATHER WITH A LOT MORE PRIVACY AND IT'S ALSO GOING TO, UM, HELP FOR BETTER STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND NOT HAVING A WOODEN WINDOW ROT BY BEING IN A SHOWER ROOM. UM, AND ALSO ON A FURTHER NOTE, UM, THE SHOWER, UH, ROOM WAS THERE EXACTLY AS IT IS, UH, NOW WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE. OKAY. AND THEN CAN YOU ADDRESS THE, UM, THE DOOR REPLACEMENT? I'VE DECIDED NOT TO DO THAT. I'VE DECIDED TO KEEP THE EXISTING FRONT DOOR AS IT IS. WE'RE JUST GONNA STAND IT, RESTORE IT, AND, AND REPAIR IT. ALRIGHT. AND THEN THE OTHER STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS ITEM FOUR, EDWARD, COULD YOU, COMMISSIONER? YES. YES. THE LAST ITEM IS THE REAR EDITION. MR. CHEN. UH, WE, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE SITE PLAN, WE CAN START THERE. THAT'LL PROBABLY BE LIKE PAGE NINE OR SO. MAYBE THE FLOOR PLAN MAY WORK. UM, SO NUMBER ONE, THE APPLICANT ENSURE A VISUAL BREAK IS PRESENT ON THE NORTH ELEVATION. THAT'S THE RIGHT ELEVATION TO SEPARATE THE ADDITION FROM THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. UH, MR. CHEN, THAT CAN AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED CONSIST OF, UH, VERTICAL TRIM PIECE OR IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN INSET ON THE FACADE. UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S CURRENTLY THE LOCATION OF THE WATER HEATER CLOSET. UH, SO IF YOU WANT TO WORK ON A DETAIL FOR THAT, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT YOU'VE GENERALLY ALREADY INCLUDED SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES IN YOUR PROPOSAL. UH, TWO, THAT A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF IS INSTALLED AND MATCH OF THE PRIMARY HISTORIC STRUCTURE. UH, THREE, THE WINDOW OPENINGS THAT MATCH OUT THE PRIMARY HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND PROFILES IN SIZE THE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN. UM, WE DID, WE DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR AT LEAST TWO WINDOW OPENINGS TO BE ADDED TO THE RIGHT ELEVATION. THAT'S THE NORTH ELEVATION. UH, AND THEN NUMBER FOUR IS THAT A WOOD WINDOW THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS BE INSTALLED. UH, MR. CHEN SUBMITTED A HANDFUL OF DIFFERENT WINDOW OPTIONS, UH, TO BE REVIEWED. UM, SO [01:50:01] COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU, UH, GO TO THE WINDOW, PRODUCT INFORMATION, UH, THERE'S A DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW THAT'S A WOOD WINDOW THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED. THERE'RE ALSO A VINYL IN IT AND I BELIEVE AN, UH, ALUMINUM OPTION. UM, OBVIOUSLY STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE WOOD PRODUCT. SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND GOING TO OPTION B. UH, SO WE CAN LOOK AT THE RIGHT ELEVATION. I GUESS IT'S PROBABLY THE NEXT PAGE ON YOUR SCREEN. THERE WILL BE A LAG ON YOUR END. EXACTLY. SO IT'S ON THE SCREEN. SO, SO THE TWO TRANSOM WINDOWS THAT I'M PROPOSING IN THE ADDITION, ONE WOULD BE PROPOSED TO BE IN THE BEDROOM. UH, YEAH, LET'S LOOK AT THAT RIGHT ELEVATION. GREAT. ON THE RIGHT ELEVATION. UH, THE TRANSOM WINDOW'S A LONG WINDOW. THAT'S WHAT I'M PROPOSING TO BE IN THE BEDROOM AGAIN FOR EXTRA PRIVACY. FOR THE, UM, FOR THE OCCUPANT. THE TRANSOM WINDOW ON THE REAR ELEVATION IN THE ADDITION IS GONNA ALSO GO IN A BATHROOM. SO AGAIN, WHY I AM PROPOSING TO NOT USE A WOODEN WINDOW IN A BATHROOM IS BECAUSE OF THE HUMIDITY AND THE MOISTURE DAMAGE THAT IT COULD INCUR, UH, OVER LONG EXPOSURE OF, UM, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE TAKING SHOWERS IN THE BATHROOM. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, I BELIEVE NOW WE CAN HEAR CITIZEN COMMENTS AND THEN WE WILL GET COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. OKAY. UM, THIS FIRST COMES FROM PAT ZIONS FOR THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO. THEY CONCUR WITH THE O H P STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK AT THREE 11 MUNCIE. ADDITIONALLY, THE ELEVATION SUBMITTED TO A CHANGE IN THE FRONT PORCH ROOF TO A GABLE ROOF. WE SUPPORT RETENTION OF THE EYEBROW PORCH ROOF AS A CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURE OF THE STRUCTURE. UM, NEXT COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND WE SUPPORT O HP'S RECOMMENDATIONS. HOWEVER, WE WOULD LIKE CONFIRMATION THAT THE ORIGINAL DISTINCTIVE EYEBROW ROOF FORM WE'LL REMAIN ON THIS DELIGHTFUL COTTAGE. SO LET'S LOOK AT THE FRONT ELEVATION. AND AND TO CLARIFY, MR. CHEN, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE CONFIRMED THAT YOU ARE MAINTAINING THAT . YES. YES SIR. I AM. I AM, I AM MAINTAINING THAT. I AM MAINTAINING THAT I HAVE, UH, ROUTE PROFILE. WE'RE JUST, UM, AGAIN, WE'RE JUST RESTORING THAT. UM, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST RESTORING THAT AREA. UH, BUT YEAH, WE'RE NOT GONNA CHANGE THE GABLE. WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY ELEVATION ON THE FRONT. YEAH, THAT EYEBROW ROOF IS GONNA, IT'S GONNA RE IT, IT'S GONNA REMAIN EXACTLY AS IT'S OKAY. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? I, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. UM, I TEND TO AGREE WITH STAFF RECOMMEND, SORRY, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IVAN. NUMBER FIVE. UM, SO I MEAN, I THINK I AGREE WITH THE, THE VISUAL BREAK AND I THINK THE APPLICANT AGREED TO THAT. THE STANDING METAL ROOF. I ALSO THINK THAT THAT'S PRETTY MUCH NOT UP TO DISCUSSION. THE WINDOW OPENINGS IS PROBABLY THE ONE ITEM THAT NEEDS TO BE TALKED ABOUT. UM, SO IT'S STIPULATION NUMBER THREE, ITEM FIVE, ITEM NUMBER ONE AND TWO, NO, SORRY, ITEM NUMBER TWO AND THREE. I THINK I'M NOT COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDING THOSE FENESTRATION CHANGES. 'CAUSE THERE'S OPTION A AND B, BUT ARE WE GOING WITH OPTION A? ARE WE GOING WITH OPTION B? I'M PROPOSING OPTION B. OKAY, SO OPTION B, BUT OPTION A IS NOT WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE, IT'S JUST ANOTHER OPTION FOR YOU. IT'S JUST ANOTHER OPTION. CORRECT. OKAY. UM, AND OPTION B FOR, CAN YOU SHOW ME OPTION B FOR THE SOUTH CASSETTE? THAT'S THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH. YEAH. SO THOSE, I MEAN, I, I DO AGREE WITH STAFF ALSO ON THAT. I MEAN, THE TRENDS AND WINDOWS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE USUALLY, UM, WOULD ACCEPT EITHER. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS COMMENTS TO THOSE. THE WINDOW MODIFICATIONS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UH, WOULD YOU BE WILLING, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ATTEND A D R C NEXT WEEK AND SIT DOWN WITH US JUST TO UNPACK THE, THE WINDOWS SO THAT WE MAKE SURE WE GET AN APPROVAL ON SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE ACCEPTABLE? IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT WITH THE OPTIONS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'D BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN OR IS TIME OF THE ESSENCE HERE FOR THE WINDOWS? WOULD [01:55:01] I BE COMING IN PERSON OR WOULD IT BE ANOTHER MEETING SIMILAR TO THIS? WELL, A A A A A COMMITTEE MEETING IS A 30 MINUTE FORMAT WHERE WE CAN, WE CAN KIND OF WITH A, WITH WITH TWO OR THREE COMMISSIONERS WHERE WE CAN KIND OF SORT THROUGH THIS AND COME TO A CLEARER, CLEARER RESOLUTION SO THAT WE CAN GET AN APPROVAL THAT WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE. AND IT'S VIRTUAL LIKE THIS, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S VIRTUAL. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S, I MEAN, THAT'S FINE. IT'S, IT'S KIND OF DIFFICULT ALSO TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING OVER, OVER A VIRTUAL MEETING, BUT YEAH, THAT'S FINE. WELL, IT, IT, IT, IT'LL BE, IT'LL BE A LOT EASIER THAN, IT'LL BE A LOT EASIER THAN THIS. I'M JUST AFRAID TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD RIGHT NOW. WE MIGHT END UP MISSING SOMETHING. AND, UH, WITH, WITH THAT, I, I, I MOVE, UH, TO THE, TO SEND THIS TO THE DEARS. I, I WANT TO SECOND THAT THIS, UH, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, BUT I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT, UH, I KINDA FEEL LIKE THIS OF, OF THE MOST COMPLICATED TO THE MOST SIMPLE. THIS IS LIKE THE MOST SIMPLE SITUATION AND IT, IT, IT SEEMS THAT OUR OBJECTIVE WOULD BE TO GET IT OUT, TO GET IT OUT, GET IT OFF OUR, OUR DOCKET. UM, UH, YOU KNOW, MY, MY FEEL, MY MY UNDERSTANDING HERE IS THAT THE COMMISSION IS GENERALLY NOT, UH, IT DOESN'T LET, LISTEN, DOESN'T GENERALLY VOTE WITH A, WITH A, UH, MAJORITY FOR THOSE TRANSOM WINDOWS THAT, THAT THE, THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, AGREED TO PROBABLY THE MOST COMPLICATED PART, WHICH IS THAT FRONT PART OF IT. SO I WOULD JUST, UH, I SECOND THAT MOTION, BUT I'D ASK COMMISSIONER FISH TO RUDY, CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT THIS TO COME BACK. WHETHER OR NOT IT, IT, IT WARRANTS ALL THE PROCESS THAT JUST IS BACKING UP THE DOCK. MAY, MAY, MAY, MAY. I ACTUALLY, MAY I SPEAK YES, SIR. WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE? WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE? UM, IS THERE SOME, IS THERE SOME KIND OF A, UH, AN AGREEMENT WE CAN COME TO NOW AS FAR AS THOSE TRANSOM WINDOWS? I MEAN, IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO PUT THOSE IN, I, I RESPECT THAT. UM, HOWEVER, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, IN MY SHOWER ROOM, IN THE, UM, IF WE LOOK AT, I'M SORRY, I'M A LITTLE TURNED AROUND HERE. UH, IF WE LOOK AT, UM, AT THE LEFT ELEVATION, UM, UNDER OPTION B, WHERE THAT TRANSOM WINDOW CURRENTLY IS, IF WE MOVED TO OPTION A AND JUST CANCEL THAT WINDOW OUT, WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE FOR THE COMMITTEE? WELL, UH, CHAIRMAN, CHAIRMAN WITH, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I, I'D JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, TO, TO, TO OFFER THE BEST CLARITY, IT, IT GOES TO A VOTE, SO THERE'S NO ANSWER, RIGHT? IT, IT HAS TO, EVERYBODY HAS TO VOTE ON IT AND THEN YOU'LL KNOW, RIGHT? BUT THEN THE BOAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. SO, SO VERY JUST WHAT I WOULD OFFER TO YOU IS THAT MOST TYPICALLY THE TRANSOM WINDOWS ARE NOT, THEY, THEY DON'T GET A MAJORITY. UM, AND IF IT'S JUST AN ISSUE BETWEEN THE TRANSOMS AND A REGULAR WINDOW, UH, UH, IT'S JUST CONVENTIONAL WISDOM WOULD SAY THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE BEDROOM, THAT, THAT, THAT IT, THAT IT, IT KIND OF PRESCRIBES A VERY COMMON WINDOW TREATMENT. AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE RESTROOM, IF IT'S NOT A TRANSOM, THEN YOU'RE KIND OF STUCK WITH AN APPROPRIATELY, UH, A PROPORTIONED WINDOW THAT IS EITHER A LITTLE WINDOW OR UM, UH, UH, OR A BIG WINDOW. BUT MOST DEFINITELY GETTING A MAJORITY FOR A TRANSOM WINDOW IS NOT THE MOST, UH, TYPICAL, UH, ISSUE TO RECEIVE A MAJORITY. DOES THAT HELP YOU? WELL, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER, I THINK, UM, SENDING IT TO D R C, WE CAN DISCUSS ALL THE, ALL THESE OPTIONS AND, UH, REASONS FOR, UM, WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING WHAT THEY DO AND THE RELUCTANCE OF THE, UH, COMMISSION, UH, TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING A FURTHER IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION. SO AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SEND TO D R C. UH, MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS. AYE. QUEZ NAY. OLA AYE GROUP? AYE BET, SIR. AYE. LA AYE. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. UM, ITEM [33. 21-1917 Address/Description: 830 DAWSON ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-037 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Francis Muzquiz Request: Installation of an ADA ramp City Council Dist.: 2] 33. I BELIEVE THAT'S FREE. YES. ITEM NUMBER 33, CASE NUMBER 20 21 0 37 AT EIGHT 30 DAWSON, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL AN A D A ACCESSIBLE [02:00:01] RAMP AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED RAMP BASED ON THE FINDING B THROUGH F WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE RAMP ENTRANCE FROM GRADE SHOULD BE ORIENTED FROM THE SIDE YARD AS IT APPROACHES THE FRONT OR REAR PORCH RATHER THAN FROM THE FRONT YARD AS PROPOSED. TWO, THAT THE RAMP FEATURES WOOD CONSTRUCTION INSTEAD OF METAL. AND UPDATED DESIGN SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. THREE. THAT ADDITIONAL NATURAL LANDSCAPE FEATURES BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING. IF THE FRONT YARD IS USED AND TWO OR IN FOUR THAT WERE NO LONGER NEEDED BY THE CURRENT RESIDENCE, THE RAMP CAN BE REMOVED AND HIS, THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE CAN BE RETURNED TO ITS PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION. I HAVE FRANCIS, UH, THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. FRANCIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION ON WHY, UM, PLACING IT TO THE SIDE IS NOT FEASIBLE AND, UH, AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL OF THE RAMP? OH, YES SIR. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS FRANCIS MUIS. I AM THE DAUGHTER OF JOSIE TINO, WHO WE ARE APPLYING FOR THIS RAMP. UH, THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING TO PUT IT IN THE FRONT IS BECAUSE IF WE GO DOWN THE SIDE OF THE, ON THE PINE STREET SIDE, ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, IT'S NOT FEASIBLE BECAUSE THERE IS A GIANT TREE BY THE FENCE TO TAKE HER OUT TO THE, UH, SIDEWALK ON PINE STREET SIDE. THE ROOTS HAVE COME UP, THEY'VE PROTRUDED UP FROM THE GROUND AND THEY'RE PRETTY BIG ROOTS. AND SINCE SHE'S IN A WHEELCHAIR, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET HER OVER THOSE. NOW, IF WE PUT IT IN THE FRONT WITH YOUR PERMISSION, IT WILL WRAP AROUND AND THE RAMP WOULD HIT EXACTLY ONTO THE SIDEWALK, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR US TO GET HER IN AND OUT. UH, THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING THIS IS BECAUSE IT'S EASIER FOR US. UH, LATELY WE'VE BEEN HAVING TO TAKE HER DOWN THE STAIRS, SO IT TAKES FOUR OF HER DAUGHTERS TO GET HER DOWNSTAIRS, AND IT'S EASIER FOR THE RAMP TO COME IN THE FRONT. NOW ALSO, WHEN IT RAINS, UH, BACK THERE, IT WILL BECOME SUPER MUDDY AND THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY WAY WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO GET HER IN AND OUT ON THE SIDE. UM, WE HAVE CANCELED SEVERAL OF HER DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENTS 'CAUSE WE'RE AFRAID TO TAKE HER DOWN THE STAIRS ON THE FEAR OF FALLING. I MEAN, SHE COULD TAKE ALL OF US WITH HER. SO YES, I I'M HOPING THAT YOU WOULD AGREE TO THE RAMP, BE IN THE FRONT, AND YES, I WOULD BE WILLING TO BUILD IT OUT OF WOOD. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, COREY, DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS? UM, WE DO, BUT THEY'RE NOT ON MY NOTES, SO GIVE ME A COUPLE MINUTES TO PULL THOSE UP AND I'LL READ THEM. UH, PLEASE CONTINUE WITH DISCUSSION. MI MR. CHAIR? UH, YES, SIR. UH, I, I, I FEEL THAT THIS IS A CASE THAT COMES BEFORE US AS AN A D A ISSUE. THAT THE, THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS, IS CLEARLY TRYING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF, OF A, OF A PERSON THAT IS, UM, MOLY CHALLENGED. AND THAT, UM, THE, THE SITUATION SEEMS THAT IT, IT, IT, IT HIGHLY, UH, SUPERSEDES, YOU KNOW, IN AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS. UH, ALSO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT BETTER, BETTER SOLUTIONS MIGHT ACTUALLY REDUCE THE, THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PERSON WHO'S PROBABLY LIVED THERE AND PAID THE TAXES ALL THESE YEARS TO NOT BE ABLE TO COME INTO THE HOUSE FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. BECAUSE BEING MOBERLY CHALLENGED, I, I I WOULD ASK MY, UH, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO, TO APPROVE THIS NEED JUST ON THE FACE VALUE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT'S, UH, CON CONSIDERATIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. MR. COMMISSIONER GIBBS, UM, I, I, I AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER. UM, I THINK THAT, UM, WITH THIS BEING AN A D A SITUATION, I, I REALLY SEE NO REASON WHY THIS SHOULDN'T BE APPROVED AND I WOULD DEFINITELY BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION. OKAY, AND I DO HAVE THOSE, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS NOW. UM, THEY COME FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY YELLOW SWORD DISTRICT, UM, THAT READS, APPROVE HAS SUBMITTED. THIS IS A PREFAB RAMP SYSTEM THAT IS THE EPITOME OF TEMPORARY. THE WOOD RAMP WILL NEED POSTS, CONCRETE, ET CETERA, AND BE MORE PERMANENT. WE RECOMMEND THESE APPLICA THESE APPLICATIONS BE APPROVED BY DEFAULT UNLESS THEY APPEAR TO BE PERMANENT OR WILL MODIFY THE HOUSE. THIS FAMILY IS NOW WAITING FOR A MONTH TO GO TO H, C OR C, NOT ACCEPTABLE. DI THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, I CONCUR WITH THE, THE NEIGHBOR COMMENTS AND I WANTED TO ASK THE APPLICANT, [02:05:01] UH, ABOUT THE RAMP SELECTION AND, AND THEIR REASON, UH, TO APPLY WITH THE, THE TEMPORARY ALUMINUM RAMP. UH, COULD YOU, COULD THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT, UH, DESIRE FOR THE ALUMINUM RAMP OVER THE WOOD RAMP? WELL, THE REASON WHY FOR THE ALUMINUM RAMP IS BECAUSE THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE TO KEEP MAINTENANCE UP ON IT WITH A, UM, WOODEN RAMP. NOW, WITH THE WOODEN RAMP, AFTER A WHILE, EVEN WITH IF WE SEAL IT OR WHATEVER WITH THE CEILING WATER SEAL, SOONER OR LATER IT'S GONNA ROCK, WHICH MEANS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO REPLACE ALL THAT WOOD. THE ALUMINUM RAMP IS GONNA BE MORE STURDY AND WOULD BE ABLE TO HOLD THE WEIGHT OF MY SISTER'S OR WHOEVER'S TAKING HER DOWN THE RAMP IN A WHEELCHAIR. MY, MY CONCERN ABOUT A WOOD RAMP IN, IN THIS CONFIGURATION IS THAT IT TENDS TO MAKE IT MORE PERMANENT AND REQUIRES MAYBE MORE SIGNIFICANT FOOTINGS AND BULK. SO, UH, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL AS, AS SUBMITTED WITH STIPULATION NUMBER FOUR, WHEN THE RAMP IS NO LONGER ME, UH, NEEDED IT BE DISASSEMBLED AND REMOVED FROM THE SITE. I'LL SECOND THAT. UH, COMMISSIONER FISH. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND, UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AND FOR ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ. AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ. AYE. AREOLA. AYE. UH, GROUP HAS STEPPED AWAY. ZER. AYE. NOTHING. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. YEAH, THANK YOU. [34. 21-1918 Address/Description: 302 LEIGH ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-060 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: DUPONT WILLIAM A & KATHRYN KANZLER Request: Front yard fence installation City Council Dist.: 1] ITEM 34. STEPH, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? YES, I AM. ITEM NUMBER 34 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 0 6 0. ADDRESS, 3 0 2 LEE STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL A NEW FRONT END YARD SIDE YARD FENCING IN A FULLY METAL PANEL PANEL, CATTLE PANEL STYLE MEASURING APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET SIX INCHES IN HEIGHT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD FENCING BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH C WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE POST AND RAILS BE FULLY WOOD IN LIEU OF THE PROPOSED FULLY METAL FENCE. FILE IS NOTED IN FINDING B AND TWO THAT THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION HEIGHT OF AN APPROVED FENCE MAY NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AS APPROVED BY THE HT OR C AT ANY PORTION OF THE THE FENCE. ADDITIONALLY, ALL OFFENSES MUST BE PERMITTED AND MEET THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OUTLINED IN U V C SECTION 35 DASH FIVE FOUR. I HAVE THE APPLICANT BILL DUPONT ON THE LINE TO TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE MATERIAL OF THE FENCE. BILL, CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF? YES. HI, I'M WILLIAM DUPONT. UH, AND THE ISSUE THAT CONCERNS THE MATERIAL CHOICE, UH, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES TELL US THE LAVACCA HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS MANY EXAMPLES OF FRONT YARDS ENCLOSED WITH HISTORIC WOOD AND METAL FENCING. BOTH MATERIALS ARE APPROPRIATE CHOICES FOR FENCING AND LAVACCA THAT MY PROPERTY 3 0 2 LEE STREET. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A PREVIOUS HISTORIC FENCE IN CASES LIKE THIS WHEN A NEW ELEMENT IS ADDED TO A HISTORIC CONTEXT. I UNDERSTAND THE DESIGN NEEDS TO BE HIGHLY RESPECTFUL OF THE HISTORIC CONTEXT IN ACCORD WITH ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. REPLICATION OF A HISTORIC DESIGN IS GENERALLY NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT MAY CONVEY A FALSE SENSE OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT. CONSISTENT WITH THIS PRINCIPLE, I DO NOT WANT A NEW FENCE, WHICH PRETENDS TO BE A HISTORIC FENCE. NEW FEATURES ADDED TO HISTORIC DISTRICTS SHOULD APPEAR TO BE OF THEIR TIME WHILE ALSO BEING RESPECTFUL AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE HISTORIC CONTEXT. LAVACCA HAS NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF FRONT YARDS ENCLOSED WITH CONTEMPORARY METAL FENCES, WHICH ARE VERY RESPECTFUL AND APPROPRIATE. EVIDENTLY, WHAT I SEEK HAS BEEN APPROVED BY H D R C IN THE PAST. MY PROPOSAL IS FOR OFFENSE AKIN TO THE BEST EXAMPLES OF CONTEMPORARY METAL FENCES IN LAVACCA. I'M HOPEFUL THE H D R C WILL AGREE METAL IS AN APPROPRIATE CHOICE. THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? WE DO NOT. THANK YOU. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I'M, I LIVE IN LAVACCA AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA. WE'VE RECENTLY, IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS REVIEWED A NUMBER OF METAL FENCE APPLICATIONS FOR THIS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD TO CONSISTENTLY APPROVED THEM AS IT'S A FAIRLY COMMON, UH, CHARACTERISTIC THAT'S FOUND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATION TWO THAT SAYS THAT DEFENSE MUST NOT EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT, WHICH IS FOUR. IT'S, AND I BELIEVE IT'S PROPOSED AT THREE FEET, SIX, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY [02:10:01] DISCUSSION? YOU HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. AREOLA? AYE. UH, GRO I THINK IS STILL STEPPED AWAY. UH, THAT SIR? AYE, LA A AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OKAY. ITEM 35, [35. 21-1919 Address/Description: 1235 E CROCKETT ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-057 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Kali Tripp/Tripp Flip, LLC Request: Removal of an existing front door City Council Dist.: 2] EDWARD. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 35 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 0 57 3 OR 1235 EAST CROCKETT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REMOVE THE EASTERN FRONT DOOR OPENING ON THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE OF 1235 EAST CROCKETT LOCATED WITHIN THE DIGNITY HILL. HISTORIC DISTRICT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED DOOR REMOVAL BASED ON FINDINGS B AND C. I HAVE THE APPLICANT MS. KAYLEY TRIP ON THE LINE NOW, MS. TRIP? YES. I'M ACTUALLY HERE WITH MY HUSBAND AS WELL WHO IS THE, UM, CO-OWNER OF OUR COMPANY WHO GOES AROUND AND, UM, ACTUALLY RESTORES HISTORIC HOMES. SO I'M GONNA ACTUALLY GIVE IT TO HIM TO TALK ON THIS ONE. HEY EVERYBODY, MY NAME IS THOR TRIPP. UM, UH, AND REGARDING THIS PROPERTY, UM, OBVIOUSLY, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE AREN'T A LOT OF DUPLEX HOMES AND OUR STRETCH OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, YOU DON'T LOOK, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK DOWN THE ROAD AND, AND NEARBY, YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF THESE. AND ACTUALLY, OUR HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1908. UM, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, ACCORDING TO A NEIGHBOR, ACTUALLY, IT'S BEEN MOVED AS WELL, UH, FROM ACROSS THE STREET BY FAIRCHILD PARK. SO ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAD WHEN TRYING TO LOCATE, OR THAT MR. HALL HAD WHEN TRYING TO LOCATE, UM, SOME OF THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY IS THAT BASICALLY HE COULDN'T FIND ORIGINAL PHOTOS, UM, OR DESIGNS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND SO WHAT WE HAVE TO GO ON IN REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF THAT DOOR IS STRICTLY THE EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE FOUND GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO, UH, MR. HALL CAME OUT TO THE SITE, UH, I WAS THERE WITH THEM I THINK IN MID-JANUARY AND, UM, REVIEWED THE, THE DOCUMENTS, UH, AND A COUPLE, A COUPLE OF THE PHOTOS THAT ARE INCLUDED THERE AS WELL. AND, UM, SO THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE SHOWS THAT THIS WAS CLEARLY NOT A DUPLEX ORIGINALLY BASED ON THE FRAMING OF THE ACTUAL HOUSE. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE PHOTOS THAT ARE SUBMITTED IN THE PACKET. UM, THERE'S TWO DOORWAYS, UH, CONNECTING WHAT YOU KNOW, IS ESSENTIALLY THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT WERE ORIGINAL AND THEN WE'RE COVERED UP IN FRAMING TO CREATE THE DUPLEX. AND THEN THERE'S ACTUALLY A, A SPOT WHERE THAT, THAT DOOR IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REMOVE ON THE EAST SIDE IS ACTUALLY, UM, HAS BEEN CUT IN AND, AND FRAMED, UM, NEW AS WELL. SO WE KNOW THAT THOSE WERE NOT ORIGINAL DESIGNS OF THE HOUSE. UM, AND, AND NUMBER TWO, YOU KNOW, THE BEST EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE TO GO OFF OF IS, YOU KNOW, THAT THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDING AND, AND STATING TO US THAT, YOU KNOW, REALLY DUPLEXES WEREN'T A COMMON THING UNTIL THE FORTIES AND FIFTIES AND OUR HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1908. SO BASICALLY WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK ON, UH, ARE THOSE TWO THINGS RIGHT NOW. UM, AND SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT, UH, SURPRISED I GUESS, THAT, UM, THE REQUEST WAS, WAS, UM, NOT APPROVED BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS JUST BRING IT BACK TO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE ORIGINAL STATE OF THE HOUSE WAS. UH, AND THAT'S THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE TO GO OFF OF. UM, ALSO WE HAVE ANOTHER HOUSE THAT WE'VE GOTTEN A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FROM JUST ONE BLOCK OVER ON HOUSTON STREET. AND THAT WAS ORIGINALLY A VICTORIAN, AND THEN SOMETIME IN THE FORTIES OR FIFTIES OR WHATEVER IT WAS MODIFIED WITH A FAKE, UH, STONE FACADE ON THE OUTSIDE. AND SO BASICALLY NOT THE ORIGINAL LOOK OF THE HOUSE AT ALL ANYMORE. AND SO WE TRY, WE'RE TRYING TO, UH, MODIFY THE PATIO POSTS, UH, TO, YOU KNOW, LOOK CONSISTENT WITH THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND WE WERE ACTUALLY, UH, INSTRUCTED TO TAKE THAT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL VICTORIAN STYLE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT ORIGINALLY WAS. SO IN THAT INSTANCE, UM, OF A HOUSE THAT WAS MODIFIED WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GO BACK TO WHAT IT ORIGINALLY WAS. [02:15:01] BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, FOR SOME REASON, UH, A HOUSE THAT WAS MODIFIED WE'RE SUPPOSED TO JUST STICK WITH THE MODIFICATION RATHER THAN, YOU KNOW, RELYING ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE THAT SHOWS IT, IT, IT'S NOT ORIGINAL. SO THAT'S KIND OF OUR, OUR THOUGHT PROCESS, I GUESS, GOING THROUGH THIS. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, COREY, DO WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS? YEAH, WE HAVE A COUPLE. UM, THE FIRST IS FROM PATTY ZIONS, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO, CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK AT 1235 EAST CROCKETT. THE FRONT DOOR IN QUESTION CAN BE PRESERVED AS, AS AN EXTERIOR FEATURE WITHOUT IMPACTING USAGE OF THE INTERIOR SPACE AND ALLOW FOR REVERSIBILITY SHOULD A FUTURE OWNER WISH TO RESTORE ITS FUNCTIONALITY. UM, THE NEXT COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT, UM, WE SUPPORT O P'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO RETAIN THE SECOND FRONT DOOR. UM, ONE OF THE STAFF'S CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORTING THE PORCH PROFILE CHANGE STATES STAFF FINDS THAT DUE TO THE PRO TO THE PRESENT, EXCUSE ME, STAFF FINDS THAT DUE TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE TWO FRONT DOORS, THE STRUCTURE'S PREVIOUS USES OF DUPLEX WILL STILL BE EVIDENT. WE SUPPORT THIS CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH THE FINDING THAT MAINTAINING BOTH FRONT DOORS PROVIDES AN ARCHITECTURAL REFERENCE OF THE STRUCTURE'S HISTORIC FORM. AND THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. OKAY. UM, THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, I GUESS IT'D BE EDWARD. UH, WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO THE, TO THE PROPERTY, UH, WAS THERE EVIDENCE, UH, NOT THAT I, UH, DOUBT MR. TRIPP, BUT COULD YOU CONFIRM THAT THE, UH, DOOR IN QUESTION WAS, UH, POSSIBLY NOT ORIGINAL? UH, YES. SO, UM, THERE'S ACTUALLY A HANDFUL OF PHOTOS, UH, THAT I NEED TO GO THROUGH. UM, IF I COULD START OFF, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON HERE. IF I COULD START OFF AND READ THE FINDINGS THAT MAY HELP. UM, I'LL START WITH FINDING B THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1235 EAST CROCKETT FIRST APPEARS ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION. IN 1986, THE STRUCTURE WAS RELOCATED TO ITS CURRENT LOCATION FROM AN UNTER AT AN UNDETERMINED TIME SPECULATIVELY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF FAIRCHILD PARK, WHERE A NUMBER OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES WERE MOVED FROM THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATIONS. THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1235 EAST CROCKETT IS LOCATED, IS NOTED ON THE 1931 SANBORN MAP IS PARTLY BURNED AND WAS NO LONGER PRESENT ON THE LOT BY 1952. O H P STAFF HAS NOT FOUND A REFERENCE TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE IN ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION. HOWEVER, THERE IS A DUPLEX STRUCTURE FOUND ON THE 1912 AND 1952 SANDBORN MAP. INTERIOR FRAMING SUGGESTS THE STRUCTURE MAY HAVE FEATURED A RECESS FRONT PORCH WITH THE STREET FACING AND SIDE YARD FACING FRONT DOORS. HOWEVER, THIS HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED VIA SANDBORN MAP OR OTHER HISTORIC INFORMATION. UH, SO, UH, IF WE COULD GO TO, UM, IF WE COULD GO TO, I GUESS WE'LL START AT PHOTO 11. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HOUSE IN ELEVATION VIEW, IF YOU WALKED INTO THE LEFT HAND SIDE FRONT DOOR, UH, YOU WOULD BE FACED WITH ANOTHER DOOR. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S BEEN MODIFICATIONS HERE TO THE OPENING. UM, THERE'S ALSO A DOOR THAT IF YOU GO TO UP TO PAGE 10, THIS IS IMMEDIATELY TO YOUR RIGHT AS YOU WALK IN THE LEFT HAND, STREET FACING DOOR, UM, BASED ON THE MULTIPLE DOOR OPENINGS THAT ARE LOCATED HERE. UM, AND THEN THE, WE, IF YOU COULD GO TO PAGE SWELLS THE OTHER FRONT DOOR. THIS IS WHAT HAS LED STAFF TO BELIEVE THAT THIS DOOR IS REFERENCING A DUPLEX. UM, THERE'S INFORMATION THAT POINTS TOWARD THE, THE MODIFIED DOOR OPENINGS AS WELL AS THE MODIFIED OR VARIATIONS IN INTERIOR SIDING, UM, THAT THE STRUCTURE MAY HAVE ACTUALLY FEATURED, UH, A RECESS FRONT PORCH WITH THE SIDE YARD AND FRONT YARD FACING DOOR. UM, THAT ALSO IS SPECULATION. WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND THAT ON A SANDBORNE MAP. UM, WHAT WE DO HAVE CURRENTLY, UM, IS THE STRUCTURE IN ITS CURRENT PROFILE, WHICH FEATURES, UH, TWO FRONT DOORS. UH, SO THAT'S WHAT STAFF IS GOING ON IN REGARDS TO REFERENCING A DUPLEX. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UH, CHAIRMAN, I, I RECALL RECENTLY REVIEWING, UH, THE FRONT PORCH FEATURES CAREFULLY AND, UH, THE COMMISSION, UH, MAKING SOME, AT LEAST INITIAL DETERMINATIONS THAT THOSE WERE LIKELY NOT ORIGINAL. IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY ON SLIDE SIX THAT SHOWS AN IMAGE OF THE ELEVATION, YOU CAN SEE THAT THOSE, THOSE EXISTING PORCH ELEMENTS ARE NOT POSITIONED EQUALLY IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO THE WINDOW CHANGE. UH, I THINK THIS FRONT FACADE HAS BEEN CHANGED A NUM NUMBER OF TIMES, EITHER WHEN IT WAS MOVED OR MAYBE BEFORE IT WAS MOVED. AND, UH, I I, I CONCUR WITH THE APPLICANT'S, UH, EVIDENCE THAT THAT DOOR WASN'T [02:20:01] ORIGINAL. AND IF, IF IT IS APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A MOTION AT THIS TIME, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. I'LL SEEK YOUR GUIDANCE. UH, COMM COMMISSIONER, FISH, I ASK YOU, I'M INTERESTED IN SECONDING YOUR MOTION, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT'S, UH, REQUEST. YES. OKAY, THEN I SECOND YOUR MOTION. UH, BUT, BUT I, I DO WANNA, I DO WANNA ADD SOMETHING TO THAT BECAUSE I, I WANTED TO ASK CORY ABOUT WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW. UH, I THINK THAT ALL OF THAT IS STILL WITHIN THE CONTEXT, UH, 'CAUSE I, I, I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD SEEN THIS LAST, LAST, LAST MEETING. IT IS VERY SIMILAR. WE'VE APPROVED THE NEW PORCH COVERING, BUT THE, THE DOOR CHANGES WERE NOT PART OF THAT SCOPE. SO THIS IS REALLY JUST FOR THE DOOR REMOVAL. OKAY. SO, JUST SO LONG AS WE'RE VERY CLEAR THAT WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT, ABOUT THE, THE, THE, UH, I THINK COMMISSIONER FISH ADDED A, UH, TO THAT OTHER, UM, MOTION IN THE LAST MEETING THAT IT WAS A PAINT GRADE MATERIAL AND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THAT ELEVATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THE STUFF THAT'S, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IN OTHER WORDS, IF HIS MOTION IS APPROVING SOMETHING THAT'S ATTACHED TO THAT IMAGE, I MEAN, PLEASE CLARIFY WHETHER THAT IMAGE IS, IS ITEM NO, THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS JUST FOR THE DOOR REMOVAL. OKAY. THEN I'M, I'M SECONDING THE MOTION. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL. UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER FISH IN THE FACT THAT THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION AROUND THE TWO DOORS IS NOT, UH, CONSISTENT. SO, UM, MODIFICATIONS MOST PROBABLY HAVE BEEN MADE. AND SO, UM, MAY, MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE, MR. CHAIR? CAN I ADD A, A COMMENT THAT I JUST, I'D JUST LIKE TO ENCOURAGE STAFF THAT WHERE THERE'S NOT A PERFECT, UM, OF READING OF, OF WHAT WAS THERE THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE, UH, A AFRAID TO SIDE ON THE SIDE OF THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY MANDATE THAT'S, THAT'S MAKING, UH, THAT, THAT'S GIVING STAFF, UM, A RATIONALE FOR EITHER ONE IF THERE'S NOT JUST ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE. SO IT, IT, IT REALLY, I THINK, DOES AN INJUSTICE TO THE APPLICANT WHEN, WHEN THERE'S A REASONABLE DOUBT AND THAT IT ENDS UP GOING ON THE SIDE OF THE PRESERVATION OFFICE. I, I THINK THAT IT REALLY NEED TO CONSIDER THE APPLICANT AS WELL. UH, THOSE ARE MY COPIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. YES. AYE. VELASQUEZ? AYE. YOLA. AYE. AYE. ALA, DO YOU MIND MUTING YOURSELF? BOWMAN? OH, I'M SORRY. FETZER. AYE. LA AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. [36. 21-1920 Address/Description: 315 W HUISACHE AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-051 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Larry Curtis Request: Front yard fence installation, walkway and landscaping modifications City Council Dist.: 1] UM, ITEM 36. RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE? YES. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 36 HT R C CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 0 5 1 3 15 WEST ATCH. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, INSTALL A FOUR FOOT HIGH WROUGHT IRON FRONT YARD FENCE AND DRIVEWAY GATE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING CONCRETE FRONT WALKWAY WITH BRICK PAVERS AND THREE COMPLETE LANDSCAPING MODIFICATIONS. ITEM ONE, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE INSTALLATION BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH C. IF THE H D R C IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE THE FRONT YARD FENCE INSTALLATION STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY GATE IS LOCATED BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE WALL PLANE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AN UPDATED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE RELOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY GATE BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE WALL PLANE TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TWO, THAT THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION HEIGHT OF THE APPROVED GATE AND FENCING MAY NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FOUR FEET AS APPROVED BY THE H D R C AT ANY PORTION OF THE FENCE. ITEM TWO, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE BRICK WALKWAY INSTALLATION BASED ON FINDING. D STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT REPAIRS AND REPLACES THE EXISTING CONCRETE WALKWAY WITH IN-KIND MATERIAL AND MATCHES THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT AND DESIGN. ITEM THREE. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPING MODIFICATIONS BASED ON FINDING E THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A LANDSCAPING PLAN TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. A LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT RETAINS AT LEAST 50% OF GREEN SPACE IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. AND THE APPLICANT, LARRY CURTIS, IS ON THE LINE. LARRY WOULD JUST SPEAK TO YOUR REQUEST? OH, YES. UM, YEAH, I'VE LOOKED AT THE, UH, RESPONSE. UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT [02:25:01] DIDN'T SEEM TO BE MENTIONED HERE, UM, I HAD INCLUDED INFORMATION ON THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN EXISTING FENCE AROUND THIS PROPERTY AND, UH, IT HAD BEEN REMOVED. UH, I'VE OWNED THIS HOME ABOUT TWO YEARS, AND AT THE TIME WE PURCHASED, UH, THIS IS A VERY SMALL LOT AND, UH, WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT OUR DOGS RUNNING INTO THE STREET, UH, UH, AND, UH, SECURITY, UH, CONCERNS 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT ALWAYS AT THIS ADDRESS. AND, UH, I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT IF THERE WAS AN EXISTING FENCE, UM, THAT, UH, IT WOULDN'T BE DIFFICULT TO REPLACE IT WITH THE FENCE THAT WAS APPROPRIATE. UM, BUT IN THE RESPONSE, UH, I DIDN'T HEAR ANY MENTION OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN EXISTING FENCE AT THIS LOCATION. THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE COMMENT. THE O THE OTHER IS, IS THAT AS FAR AS THE DRIVEWAY GATE IS CONCERNED, UM, I WILL RESUBMIT, UH, A PLOT, UH, AND, UH, WE'LL DROP THAT REQUEST. UM, IT'S NOT NECESSARY THAT THE DRIVEWAY GATE BE MOVED FORWARD. I THOUGHT THAT IN THE PLOT MAP THAT I SUBMITTED, I HAD ALREADY INDICATED THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE PLANE OF THE HOUSE. IT WAS BACK THAT FAR, BUT, UM, I'M GONNA DROP THAT PORTION OF THE REQUEST. ONE, ONE OTHER ITEM IS, IF I RESUBMIT THIS, UH, THIS IS A FOUR FOOT FENCE, BUT, UM, THE GATE ITSELF THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IS AN ARCHED GATE, SO IT WOULD BE ABOUT SIX INCHES OVER THE FOREFOOT IF YOU MEASURED IN THE CENTER. SO, ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. UM, DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS? UH, WE DO, UM, FROM PAUL KENON, THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, CONCURS WITH O H P STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING VINCE WALKWAY AND LANDSCAPE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION. THE NEXT COMES FROM CHARLIE FULTON. THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR FRONT YARD FENCES IN MONTE VISTA. FENCE AT TWO 14. WEST SATCH IS NEXT TO A NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES THE AESTHETIC CHARACTER OF THE STREET. ST. ANTHONY IS A PRE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THEIR FENCE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL USE. THE CURTISS HAVE ALREADY DAMAGED THE AESTHETIC CHARACTER OF THE STREET BY REMOVING A 70 FOOT HERITAGE PECAN TREE FROM THEIR FRONT YARD. RECENTLY ADDING A FRONT YARD FENCE IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE AND OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE REST OF MONTE VISTA. AND THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. THANK YOU. MR. CAN I COMMENT ON, CAN I COMMENT ON THAT? UH, YES, SIR. MR. CURTIS, YOU MAY. YEAH. UM, I WAS, UH, WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOME, I'M SOMEWHAT NEW TO SAN ANTONIO, BUT, UH, WE WERE LOOKING EXTENSIVELY IN THE LEVO AREA AT KING WILLIAMSON UNTIL WE SETTLED HERE. UM, I WASN'T AWARE THAT THERE WAS, UH, AS MUCH DIFFERENCE AS THERE IS IN THE, UH, IN, IN THE, UH, VARIOUS HISTORIC DISTRICTS. UM, SO I CERTAINLY WASN'T AWARE THAT THERE WAS NO PRESIDENTS WITHIN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR FRONT YARD FENCES. AS A MATTER OF FACT, UM, I DON'T, I MAY HAVE MET CHARLIE, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE, I'VE BEEN TO SOME OF THE MEETINGS IN THE AREA. BUT, UM, TO SAY THAT THERE'S NO PRESENCE FOR FRONT, FRONT YARD FENCES, I WOULD SAY IS NOT CORRECT. THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY FRONT YARD FENCES IN A NUMBER OF PLACES WITHIN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT, EVEN THOUGH I ALSO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT IN, IN, UH, MANY AREAS THERE ARE WIDE YARDS, LARGE HOUSES, AND NO FENCES. HOW THAT CAME ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, HE SEEMS TO BE VERY UPSET WITH THAT. AND I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT ON THE TREE, ALTHOUGH THAT ISN'T PART OF THIS, I WASN'T AWARE THAT WE NEEDED TO GET PERMISSION TO TAKE THE TREE DOWN. THE TREE WAS RIGHT ON THE LOT LINE BETWEEN OUR TWO, UH, HOUSES. MY NEIGHBOR AND I, UH, THE TREE IS DYING. IT'S 70 FEET HIGH. WHEN THE TREE WAS TAKEN DOWN, MORE THAN 30% OF THE INTERIOR OF THE TREE WAS HOLLOW AND GONE. SO, UH, IN THE FUTURE, IF I HAVE A TREE TO TAKE DOWN, I'LL CERTAINLY, UH, UH, GET WHATEVER APPROVALS THAT I NEED. BUT IN THAT CASE, WE WERE REALLY, UH, UH, INTERESTED IN GETTING IT DOWN BEFORE IT FELL DOWN. SO I, I DON'T THINK, AGAIN, THE NEIGHBOR WAS AWARE OF, UH, YOU KNOW, THE CONDITION OF THE TREE. I'M SORRY IT OFFENDED HIM, MR. CHAIR. UM, I, I, I, I, I APPRECIATE THE, THE, UH, THE MOST PREVIOUS COMMENTS OF THE APPLICANT. HOWEVER, I, I THINK THAT REALLY THE MOST OUTSTANDING, UH, INFORMATION [02:30:01] IS THE PIC ARE THE PICTURES THAT, THAT ARE GIVEN TO US THAT SAY THAT THERE, THERE WAS A FENCE THERE, I THINK WITH, WITH THE APPLICANT, UM, AGREEING TO MOVE THAT FENCE BACK TO, TO WHERE STAFF IS, UH, REQUESTING WITH RESPECT TO THE DRIVEWAY. UM, YOU KNOW, APPROPRIATE OR NOT APPROPRIATE, IT, IT, IT, IT DID EXIST AND THERE, AND THERE'S PROOF OF THAT. SO, UM, I WOULD ASK, UM, COMMISSIONERS TO PLEA TO, TO CONSIDER ALLOWING ME TO MAKE A MOTION SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE. UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IF, IF THAT'S OKAY TO SQUEEZE ONE. IN THE, THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PROVIDING IS, UH, POST HOLES, CONCRETE FILLED POST HOLES. DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF WHAT KIND OF FENCE THERE? IT'S EXTENT IT'S MATERIAL, OR IS THIS THE EXTENT OF THE VID? OKAY. UM, I WANNA ASK IT FOR, I, LET ME PUT A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT ON THE QUESTION. UM, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND IF THAT, IF THAT FENCE WAS HISTORIC TO THE HOUSE THAT WAS A LATER ADDITION LATER, LATER REMOVED. AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE BLOCK AND THE CHARACTER OF THE FRONT YARDS, UH, THERE ARE BLOCKS WITHIN DISTRICTS WHERE THERE'S A PATTERN OF FENCES WHERE APPROVAL OF A NEW FENCE MAY BE APPROPRIATE ON BLOCKS WHERE THERE'S NOT AN ESTABLISHED PATTERN OF FENCES. IT MAY NOT. SO I'M HESITATING HERE AND I'M KIND OF ASKING FOR SOME CLARITY ON THE EVIDENCE YOU'RE PROVIDING. YEAH. UM, GOOD QUESTION. UM, I WOULDN'T KNOW, UH, WHETHER THE FENCE WAS ORIGINAL. I DO KNOW THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1928 AND I WAS TOLD THEN I BELIEVE IT'S, UH, PART OF THE RECORD THAT THE HOUSE WAS, UH, IS ON LAND THAT WAS SUBDIVIDED FROM THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE. SO, UM, THAT BEING SAID, WHAT WE HAVE IS A VERY NARROW LOT, UH, WITH TWO DRIVEWAYS ON EACH SIDE. UM, MY NEIGHBOR HAS BEEN HERE MORE THAN 30 YEARS, AND HE'S AWARE OF THE FENCE, BUT ISN'T AWARE THAT THE FENCE WAS UP SINCE HE'S OWNED THE HOUSE. SO I, I, I LOOK AT, I LOOK AT KIND OF THE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT REMAINS TO THE FENCE, WHICH IS THE NUMBER OF CONCRETE FILLED POSTHOLES, AND IT APPEARS THAT IT WAS PROBABLY A CHAIN LINK FENCE. AND, UM, WHETHER A CHAIN LINK FENCE WAS PUT IN 9 28 OR 1930 OR WHENEVER, I'M NOT SURE. I DID CHECK AND FIND THAT IT WAS, THAT TYPE OF FENCE WAS DEVELOPED IN THE LATE 18 HUNDREDS IN ENGLAND. SO IT'S, IT'S POSSIBLE. I ALSO KNOW THERE WAS REMNANTS OF CHAINLINK FENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE IN MY BACKYARD, UH, AND IT WAS A CHAINLINK FENCE AND IT WAS REMOVED WHEN THEY REDID THE HOUSE NEXT TO ME AND SOLD IT, UH, ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO. SO I, I, I'VE ZOOMED IN AS I'VE ZOOMED IN AS CLOSE AS I CAN ON THE IMAGE THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED. AND IT APPEARS THAT THAT'S PROBABLY A ROUND PIPE SECTION OF A, OF A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT WOULD'VE MAYBE BEEN ADDED LATER FOR A PERIOD PERIOD OF TIME AND THEN REMOVED. BUT IT APPEARS THAT THAT WAS QUITE SOME TIME AGO. SO THIS IS DIFFICULT FOR ME BECAUSE THERE ISN'T AN ESTABLISHED PATTERN OF FENCING ON THIS BLOCK ASSOCIATED WITH THESE LOTS. UH, AND I WELL APPRECIATE, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU KIND OF EXPANDING INTO THE EVIDENCE YOU'VE PROVIDED HERE, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH. MM-HMM. , THIS IS COMMISSIONER. I'M HAVING THE SAME STRUGGLE. CAN YOU TELL ME, THAT'S AT THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY RIGHT BEFORE THE SIDEWALK, AND THAT'S THE EVIDENCE RIGHT ON THE BOTH SIDES OF THE DRIVEWAY. IS THERE ANY MORE EVIDENCE OR IS, UM, WHERE ARE THOSE POST? YEAH, THO THOSE POST LOCATIONS ARE ALL ALONG THE SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY ON THE NEIGHBOR'S SIDE. THERE ARE THREE OF THEM. AND, AND I'LL RE AS I RESUBMIT THIS, I'LL GIVE YOU ALL THE INFORMATION. I'LL GIVE YOU MORE INFORMATION ON THIS. AND IT'S ALSO LIKE, WITHDRAW RIGHT NOW AND THEN RESUBMIT WITH MORE INFORMATION. OR SHOULD WE GO ON AN INFORMAL MEETING? AND WE KIND OF DISCUSSED THIS MORE BECAUSE I DO HAVE THE SAME CONFLICT THAT COMMISSIONER FISH HAS. THE BLOCK HAS NO FENCING. THERE'S NO, I MEAN, IT, THAT IS THE DIFFICULT PART, BUT OF COURSE THIS EVIDENCE DOES HELP. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ENOUGH TO SAY THAT WE WILL DO, YOU KNOW, PROOF OF FENCING ALL THE AROUND. UH, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION AND THEN COME TO LIKE AN INFORMAL MEETING? SURE. UH, THIS COMMISSIONER, I MEAN, I THINK I, I I THINK THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT WE NEED TO SIT DOWN AND, AND TALK ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT TO US, UH, FOR SECURITY REASONS. AND, AND, AND A COUPLE OF TIMES MY DOG HAS ACTUALLY LEFT THE HOUSE AND ALMOST GOTTEN INTO TRAFFIC. [02:35:01] I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE, THIS, THIS PART OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, I, I, AND OBVIOUSLY FROM THE COMMENT FROM THE, FROM CHARLIE THAT PEOPLE REALLY WANT, DON'T WANT ANY FENCE IN THEIR FRONT YARD, BUT THERE'S A REASON THAT PEOPLE PUT FENCES IN THEIR FRONT YARD. AND YOU CAN GO TO TOBAN HILLS, YOU CAN GO DOWN, UH, UH, ANY, A NUMBER OF STREETS EVEN WITHIN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT AND SEE PICKET FENCES AND, UH, VARIOUS TYPES OF FENCES INCLUDING WR IRON FENCES. UH, AND THERE'S A REASON WHY PEOPLE DO THAT, OBVIOUSLY. UH, AND, AND WE HAVE GOOD REASONS TO DO IT 'CAUSE WE HAVE TWO HO HOMES AND WE'RE NOT ALWAYS AT THIS ADDRESS. AND WE HAVE A DOG, WE HAVE THREE DOGS, AND WE'D RATHER NOT HAVE THEM KILLED. SO THIS IS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ. I, YOU, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, IT'S, IT IS INTERESTING, YOU KNOW, AND I'M JUST BE BE VERY, UH, YOU KNOW, IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE, RIGHT? UH, SOMETIMES MORE REASONS DON'T MAKE A, MAKE AN ARGUMENT ANY BETTER, RIGHT? I MEAN, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD PEOPLE THAT HAVE MADE ARGUMENTS FOR HAVING FENCES BECAUSE THEIR CATS ARE GETTING EATEN. AND WE'VE SAID NO, I I, I'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT, THAT THAT, THAT WHAT I THINK IS THE OUTSTANDING, UH, COMPONENT HERE OF YOUR, OF YOUR EVIDENCE IS THAT THE PROPERTY HAS ENJOYED THE RIGHT OF A FENCE AND, AND THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF THAT FENCE ENOUGH SO THAT SOMEONE COULD EVEN SAY THAT THERE IS A FENCE THAT EXISTS BELOW GRADE RIGHT NOW. AND, AND, AND IN THAT IT, YOU KNOW, LEFT TO OUR DISCRETION. I MEAN, I THINK THAT WE CAN SPEND A LOT OF TIME GOING TO ANOTHER MEETING, HAVING ANOTHER MEETING. BUT THE REALITY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PROPERTY HA DOES HAVE EVIDENCE THAT IT HAS ENJOYED IN ITS HISTORIC CONTEXT, THE, THE, UM, THE, THE RIGHT OF OFFENSE. AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS NOT A CYCLONE OFFENSE. I THINK WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS, IS, IS ACTUALLY AN AESTHETIC UPGRADE. SO I WOULD ASK MY COMMISSIONERS TO PLEASE, LET'S NOT, UH, UH, IF IT'S POSSIBLE NOT TO EXTEND THIS SIMPLE CASE AND, AND, AND, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE APPLICANT BE ALLOWED TO PUT A FENCE WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT STAFF HAS PLACED, UH, TO HAVE THAT DRIVEWAY FENCE PLACED, BE, UH, YOU KNOW, AT, AT THE ACCEPTABLE DISTANCE BACK, UH, UH, UH, IN THAT DRIVEWAY. SO THAT'S A MOTION. I HOPE I GET A SECOND. THANK YOU, MR. KTA, WAS THAT A MOTION YOU MADE JUST NOW? YES, IT'S A MOTION AND, AND ENDED BY SAYING, I HOPE I GET A SECOND. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER ITEM? UM, OH, UH, UH, THE OTHER TWO ITEMS. I, I CAN ANSWER THOSE. UH, I WILL SUBMIT A, UH, A, UH, LANDSCAPE, UH, UM, OR AN LANDSCAPE PLAN. UH, COULD YOU HELP CORY, THAT GIVES YOU MORE DETAIL. AND ALSO ON THE BRICK, UH, UH, WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO DO BRICK, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE FOUR OTHER, UH, PATHWAYS IN THE, IN RIGHT AROUND ME THAT ARE BRICK, BUT I, UH, IT'S NOT NECESSARY CO. CORY, COULD YOU HELP, UH, CLARIFY, UH, ALL THAT'S BEFORE US. UM, ACTUALLY I'M GONNA RELY ON RACHEL TO READ STAFF STIPULATIONS. OR ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY, LET'S GET 'EM ON THE SCREEN. THE STAFF STIPULATIONS. SO WE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT THE DRIVEWAY GATE WOULD BE PUSHED BACK BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE WALL PLANE, UM, AND THE HEIGHT OF FOUR FEET. AND THAT WOULD BE FOR ALL PORTIONS OF THE FENCE, EXCEPT IF THE GATE WAS PUSHED BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE PLANE, THEN WE WOULD CONSIDER, UH, TALLER THAN FOUR FENCE. WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE BRICK WALKWAY INSTALLATION. UM, AND THEN, UH, LANDSCAPE MODIFICATIONS. SO, SO THEN MY MOTION CLARIFIED WOULD BE MOTION TO, UM, UH, A, A ACCEPT APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL FOR OFFENSE AS STIPULATED BY STAFF SHOULD THE FENCE OPTION BE SELECTED. AND, UH, ITEM TWO AND ITEM THREE, UH, PER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SO I GUESS IT WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHT IN, IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING AND JUST ANY, ANY LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT MEETS THE GUIDELINES IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. OKAY. THAT THERE'S MY MOTION. JUST, UH, ONE COMMENT. I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S ONE MORE REASON FOR A D R C BECAUSE THE APPLICANT CAN ACTUALLY DISCUSS FREELY, LIKE THE TYPE OF BRICK. I THINK THE BRICK WALKWAY IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT COULD BE WORKED WITH IF WE LOOK AT THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. THE STREET LANDSCAPE. AND, AND WELL THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. LET'S, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. LET'S, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? YEAH, I SECOND IT. OKAY. UH, ANY DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ NAYYY FISH NAY GIBBS [02:40:01] NAY. ALASKA QUEZ? YES. ORLA. AYE. RUBE. AYE. FETZER NAY LA AYE AY. MOTION FAILS. WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION COMMISSIONER GROUP MOTION TO MOVE THIS TO A D R C. COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ. I SECOND. MOTION TO SECOND TO SEND THIS TO A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ NAYYY AREOLA AYE GROUP? AYE. AYE. FETZER AYE. AYE. MOTION CARRIES [37. 21-1921 Address/Description: 510 E CARSON HDRC Case No.: 2021-048 Historic District Name: Government Hill Applicant:Jed Singa-Craddock Request: Front yard fence installation City Council Dist.: 2] ITEM TO THE APPLICANT? YEAH. ITEM NUMBER 37. WE'LL HEAR THAT ONE AND THEN WE WILL TAKE A, UH, FIVE MINUTE BREAK. SOUNDS GOOD. LEE, ARE YOU THERE? YES. ITEM NUMBER 37, CASE NUMBER 20 21 0 48 AT FIVE 10 EAST CARSON. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE CONSTRUCT, A FOUR FOOT TALL WRT IRON FENCE, FRONT YARD FENCE FOR FIVE 10 EAST CARSON. AND TWO, REPLACE THE EXISTING FENCE ON THE REAR YARD WITH A NEW SIX FOOT TALL WOOD PRIVACY FENCE THAT INCLUDES THE ENCLOSURE OF THE REAR DWELLING STRUCTURE ADDRESSED FIVE 11 KALITA ON THE SAME LOT THAT RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FINDINGS WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION. ONE THAT THE SIX FOOT TALL REAR PRIVACY FENCE SHOULD TERMINATE BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE OF BOTH STRUCTURES AT FIVE 10 EAST CARSON AND FIVE 11 KALITA RATHER THAN FULLY ENCLOSED FIVE 11 KALITA AS A REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. TWO, THAT THE FRONT YARD FENCES PASS BOTH STRUCTURES. FRONT FACADE PLANES SHOULD FEATURE THE APPROPRIATE HEIGHT BELOW FOUR FEET AND A DESIGN APPROPRIATE TO THEIR RESPECTIVE STYLE. AND THREE, THAT ANY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR SOLAR COLLECTORS FOR A GATE IF USED, SHOULD BE SET BEHIND THE FENCE FOR MINIMAL VISIBILITY. I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT, JED, ON THE LINE. UH, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, COMMISSION, UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SIMPLE FRONT YARD FENCE FOR THE STRUCTURE. HOWEVER, WE'RE IN A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE THE LOT SHARES A, UH, WHAT ORIGINALLY WAS A PRIMARY DWELLING, BUT THE APPLICANT IS WISHING TO ENCLOSE IT FULLY AS A PRIVATE, UH, REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. GO AHEAD, JED. HI, MY NAME'S JED CRADDICK. UM, SO BASICALLY EVERYTHING THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED IS WHAT WE'RE APPLYING FOR. UM, THERE IS PROOF ON THE EASEMENT OF EAST KALITA ALONG JUST HOUR BLOCK OF NUMEROUS FENCES THAT ARE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED WITH WOODEN FENCES. THERE'S ALSO AN EXAMPLE OF A HOUSE TWO HOUSES DOWN WITH A REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT ALSO HAS AN ENCLOSED WOOD FENCE ON THE SAME BLOCK IN EAST KTA. AND CONSIDERING THAT IT IS ALSO AN EASEMENT AND NOT A MAIN STREET, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ENCLOSE THE WHOLE YARD. UM, AND THE LAST POINT THAT I HAVE IS WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE FESTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE EASEMENT, UM, AND STOLEN THINGS OFF OUR FRONT YARD. WE'VE HAD OVER $1,500 WORTH OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF MATERIAL, ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN STOLEN FROM OUR YARD. AND UNFORTUNATELY THAT IS JUST THE, THE STATE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU GUYS ARE NOT GOING TO APPROVE IT BECAUSE OF THE WOOD FENCE, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE WOULD PREFER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE WOOD FENCE AROUND THE BACK STRUCTURE. THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS? WE DO NOT. THANK YOU. THIS IS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. AND, AND PERHAPS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF TO CLARIFY AND THOSE OTHER EXAMPLES WHERE, UH, PRIVACY FENCE IS GOING TOWARD KALIDA, ARE THOSE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OR WERE THOSE STRUCTURES THAT WERE ADDRESSED TO KALIDA TO STAFF'S? UNDERSTANDING? THE PHOTOS THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW TOWARDS, UH, DEEPER DOWN KALITA STREET, THOSE ARE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WHERE THERE IS MORE OF AN ALLEYWAY CONDITION. HOWEVER, TOWARDS, UH, THIS SIDE OF KALITA, YOU STILL SEE THREE EXPOSED, UH, ORIGINALLY PRIMARY DWELLING, UH, FRONT FACING STRUCTURES. SO THESE THREE ARE, ARE, UH, UNOBSTRUCTED BY A FENCE AT THIS TIME. YOU KNOW, MY MY THINKING ON THIS IS IF, IF THAT PROPERTY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED TO CO COLETA WAS NOT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND WAS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO [02:45:01] A PRIMARY STRUCTURE, I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM SUPPORTING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. BUT I DO CONCUR WITH STAFF AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS. I DON'T KNOW, UH, IF MY, UH, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. WELL, I, YES, COMMISSIONER GROUP. SORRY. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. UM, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, THIS STREET IS VERY DIFFICULT. I THINK WE HAVE HAD APPROVAL ALSO SOME FROM NEW CONSTRUCTION FURTHER DOWN. UM, BUT I DO AGREE, I THINK THAT, UH, STAFF HAS IT RIGHT ON THIS ONE. AS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, UH, I I WOULD ASK, UM, REALLY IF COREY, UM, OR, OR WHOEVER THE, THE PROJECT, UM, MANAGER IS FOR THIS APPLICATION, UH, THE, THE HOUSE THAT IS FACING THE, UM, UH, UH, COLITA IS THAT, UM, UH, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THE ONE THAT I'M CURRENTLY LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW. RIGHT? RIGHT. BUT, BUT I MEAN, IF, IF IF IT'S AN ACCESSORY TO THE HOUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE, THEN THEN IT'S, UM, THEN WE WOULD SAY THAT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS THE FRONT OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING. RIGHT. BUT IF THERE'S BEEN A SECONDARY BUILDING THAT'S BEEN CREATED AND THE ENTRY INTO THAT HOUSE IS OFF OF THE STREET, THEN TECHNICALLY THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS FACING THE, THE , RIGHT? OR WHAT WAS, I GUESS WHAT WOULD'VE BEEN AN ALLEY AT ONE TIME? RIGHT? SO THAT CASE, I THINK IT'S, LET'S JUST SAY IN THAT CASE, IT KIND OF REDEFINES YOUR, IT KIND OF REDEFINES THE, LIKE, IF IT JUST WAS APPLIED TO YOUR TYPICAL, UM, FRONT FACING HOUSE, THAT, THAT YOU WOULD BE VERY LIMITED. AND THE LIMITATION WOULD BE, WOULD, WOULD, WOULD NOT BE DEFINED BY OUR OPINION, BUT BE DEFINED BY WHETHER THIS BUILDING IS ACCESSORY TO THE MAIN BUILDING. BECAUSE ONCE IT FACES FORWARD, THEN THERE ARE DIFFERENT RULES THAT APPLY, RIGHT? IT'S KINDA LIKE IN AN ID IN, IN A, IN AN I D Z WHERE YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE ONE RULE IF A PARTICULAR CONDITION EXISTS, AND IN THIS CASE THE PARTICULAR CONDITION THAT EXISTS IS THAT IT, THAT IF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE FACED THIS, THEN YOU'D HAVE ONE CONDITION. BUT IF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE FACES, UH, THIS ROAD, THEN YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT CONDITION. SO I'LL DEFER TO, TO STAFF, BUT UM, JUST, JUST IN THE SENSE THAT, THAT A CONDITION LIKE THAT IS ALREADY DEFINED, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT'S TO OUR DISCRETION. YES. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FE. I CAN YOUR QUESTION. OH, AND I WOULD CONCUR WITH, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS ONE. UM, YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION OR COMMENT MR. CRADOCK? I MEAN, I HAVE NO QUESTIONS OTHER THAN, UH, YOU KNOW, I ASSUME THAT I'M NOT ALLOWED TO PUT A SIX FOOT ROT IRON FENCE IN THE BACK. UM, EVEN THOUGH I WOULD PREFER TO DO THAT, UM, JUST FOR SAFETY PRECAUTION AND SAFETY REASONS. 'CAUSE A FOREFOOT FENCE DOES NOT REALLY PREVENT SOMEONE FROM JUMPING OUR FENCE. AND MY BIGGEST CONCERN IN ALL OF THIS IS THAT WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE THEFTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE PERSONAL PROPERTY STOLEN MORE THAN ONE OCCASION, IN FACT, TO THE POINT WHERE U P S AND AMAZON WILL NO LONGER DELIVER TO OUR HOUSE. AND I HAVE TO GO TO AN ACTUAL FREESTANDING BUILDING TO GO COLLECT OUR MAIL. SO THAT IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN. UM, WITH THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, THE FRONT, WE HAVEN'T HAD MANY ISSUES BECAUSE AS YOU ALL KNOW, CARSON IS A VERY BUSY STREET. ONE, IT'S A BUS ROUTE. IT'S ALSO, I MEAN, IT'S AS BIG AS GRAYSON. SO I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ALSO COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE FOREFOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT. SO THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION 'CAUSE IT WASN'T CLARIFIED, UM, IN THE NOTES TO ME, WHAT WERE THE ACTUAL SPECIFIC SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE BACK STRUCTURE. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF A QUESTION, STEP STEP. HAS THIS BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE, IN THE, IN THE CONTEXT OF A FRONT FACING SECONDARY DWELLING? I MEAN, IS THERE, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT, I MEAN, IS THERE A, 'CAUSE I I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M HOPING THAT THERE'S A WAY TO COMMUNICATE TO THE APPLICANT THAT THE CONDITION THAT CAUSES Y'ALL TO MAKE THE READING THAT YOU MAKE, THAT YOU MAKE, THAT IS ACTUALLY BASED ON, UM, YES, THAT IS, UH, THAT IS, IS INTERPRETING APPLICATION OF, OF, UH, FENCING GUIDELINES TO THE HISTORIC PATTERN, WHICH FEATURES A FRONT A STRUCTURE, AND A STRUCTURE FACING KALIDA. SO THOSE ARE TWO ORIGINALLY PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES FACING THEIR OWN STREET. [02:50:02] SO AT WHICH POINT THE, UM, THE PROPERTY WAS COMBINED AND NOW IS BEING TREATED AS A SECONDARY STRUCTURE. I, I, HOWEVER, I APPRECIATE NOT FOR APPLYING IT TO HISTORIC PATTERN. I, I, I APPRECIATE THE, THE, UM, UH, THE, THE ANSWER. UH, I THINK THAT PROBABLY IN EXPLAINING IT, YOU SHOULD ADD THAT IT'S IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE ON THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY. I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S A DETAIL THAT I, I MEAN, MAYBE NEEDS TO HAVE A, A, YOU KNOW, MORE FORMAL RULE APPLIED. BUT, UM, I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWER. THAT'S, THAT'S QUESTION I WAS ASKING STAFF CLARIFIED TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE, THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE SIX FOOT, WHERE THE SIX FOOT IS ALLOWED ON THE FOUR FEET. I THINK I UNDERSTOOD THAT BEHIND THE PROPERTIES, RIGHT, HE CAN HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE. I MEAN, I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE, THAT WAS MY QUESTION THAT NO ONE ANSWERED YET. UM, ABOUT COMMISSIONER, UH, COMMISSIONER GRU, IF, IF WE, IF WE COULD ZOOM IN ON THE IMAGE WE SEE ON THE SCREEN, WHICH IS THE AERIAL VIEW. UH, I, MY MY UNDERSTANDING OF STAFF'S COMMENTS IS THAT BETWEEN THE TWO, BETWEEN THE TWO FRONT FACES OF THE STRUCTURES, THAT'S THE FRONT FACE OF FIVE 11 AND THAT FACES COTA. AND THEN THE OTHER FRONT FACE THAT FACES THE STREET TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS CARSON, UH, ANYWHERE BETWEEN THOSE FRONT FACES, THAT CAN ALL BE SIX FOOT TALL WOOD PRIVACY FENCE. SO LONG AS THAT PRIVACY, PRIVACY FENCE TRANSITIONS TO, UH, A, A FENCE NO HIGHER THAN FOUR FEET, UH, AS YOU APPROACH KALITA AND CARSON, NOW THE U D C DICTATES THAT, THAT THAT FOUR FOOT HEIGHT IS REQUIRED FOR THOSE STREET ADDRESSING THOSE KIND OF STREET FACING ELEMENTS. AND WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DISCRETION BEYOND THE U D C AND THAT MAY EVEN REQUIRE VARIANCE IF WE WERE TO APPROVE SOMETHING BEYOND FOUR FEET. SO THOSE SIX FOOT FENCES THAT, THAT SPAN BETWEEN THE TWO FRONT FACES CAN TERMINATE, UH, JUST BEHIND THE FRONT FACE SO THAT YOU HAVE A, A FULLY SIX FOOT ENCLOSED AREA BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES, AND THEN IT WOULD BE FOUR FEET BETWEEN THE FRONT BASE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE STREET ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH, UH, STAFF. AM I OKAY INTERPRETING THIS CORRECTLY? CORRECT. WELL, COMMISSIONER FISH, I WOULD, BUT SEE, SEE, THE REASON WHY THE, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WAS ASKING STAFF TO, TO LOOK DEEPER INTO, UH, SOME CLARIFYING RULE IS BECAUSE TECHNICALLY, LIKE IF THIS, IF THIS WAS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, OR IF, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTED TO, WANTED TO CALL CODE ON IT, THAT TECHNICALLY THAT'S THE BACKYARD, TECHNICALLY THAT'S THE BACK FACADE SO THAT IT'S IN AN O H P AREA. WELL THEN STAFF IS INTERPRETING BASED ON THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE OFFERED BY THE O H P, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE SUPPORTED BY THE U D C, SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT STAFF, IT WOULD BE KIND OF INCUMBENT ON STAFF RIGHT. TO, UH, ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, TO GO AND FIND IF THERE'S ANY, ANY, ANY RULE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY. BECAUSE TECHNICALLY WHEN YOU SEE IT BOUNDED THE WAY THAT IT IS, THE OWNERS WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO CONSIDER THAT BACK THERE, THEIR REAR OF THE YARD, JUST LIKE THAT BUILDING THAT'S PUSHED ALL THE WAY UP TO THE BACK, FURTHER DOWN THE STREET. THAT MIGHT BE, THAT MIGHT WELL BE THE CASE. AND, AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, THE PREVAILING PATTERN IN THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT PART OF THE CODE. UH, WE WERE TO, I MEAN, THE QUESTION IS ON THE FIVE 11 STRUCTURE FACING COTA, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE A FENCE HIGHER THAN FOUR FEET, WOULD IT REQUIRE A VARIANCE? I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. THAT SEEMS TO BE BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THIS COMMISSION, BUT IT MAY. RIGHT. UM, BUT WE SEE, I MEAN, WE AN UNUSUAL LOTS IN A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND, AND WE KIND OF, WE, WE REVIEW THEM BASED ON THE CHARACTER OF THE STREET FACING ELEMENTS. SO IT, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT MUCH OF A PUZZLE TO ME. MAY WE HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE? I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS ONE THROUGH THREE. I'LL SECOND ASK. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ. AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. AREOLA? AYE. RUBE. AYE. UH, ZER? AYE. LI AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND GO AHEAD. OKAY. THERE YOU GO. WE'RE BACK. AGENDA [38. 21-1922 Address/Description: 215 LOSOYA ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-054 Historic District Name: Alamo Plaza RIO District:RIO-3 Applicant:CESAR CARRILLO/Landry’s Inc Request: Signage, rehabilitation, awning installation City Council Dist.: 1] ITEM NUMBER 38 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 20 0 54 2 15. LATOYA, UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TOO. AND COMMISSIONERS, UH, I'M ONLY GONNA READ REQUEST FIVE BECAUSE THAT IS THE [02:55:01] ONLY ITEM THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED TODAY. INSTALL A WALL MOUNTED SIGN ABOVE THE LASSO STREET ENTRANCE, THREE KING RANCH, TEXAS KITCHEN. THE PROPOSED SIGN WILL FEATURE INTERNALLY ELIMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS WITH WHITE PLEXI FACES. THE PROPOSED SIGN WILL FEATURE AN OVERALL WIDTH OF EIGHT FEET, FOUR INCHES, AND AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF THREE FEET, FOUR INCHES FOR A TOTAL SIZE OF APPROXIMATELY 28 SQUARE FEET. I'LL READ THE RECOMMENDATION NOW. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE AS PROPOSED LAW SIGN BASED ON FINDING E I WILL NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A REVISION, UH, FOR THIS REQUEST. UM, AND THAT REVISION DOES INCLUDE, UM, REVERSE LIT OR INDIRECTLY LIT CHANNEL, UH, CHANNEL LETTERS AND ASSIGN THAT FEATURES ALL METAL CONSTRUCTION. SO THE APPLICANT HAS ELIMINATED THE INTERNAL ELIMINATION AS WELL AS THE PLEXI FACES. UH, IF YOU REFER TO FINDING E STAFF NOTES THAT WERE NOT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BECAUSE THE WALL SIGNS AREN'T FOUND ON THIS BLOCK CURRENTLY, I HAD THE APPLICANT, MR. CARILLO, ON THE LINE. MR. CARILLO. GOOD, GOOD, GOOD EVENING COMMANDERS. UH, YES. UH, SO ED AND I, I HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH HIM, UH, THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD FIND A RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT FALL SIGNAGE NOW THAT WE HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE MATERIALS AND CHANGE THE ILLUMINATION TO FIT WITHIN, UH, THE GUIDELINES. AND ALSO WE ARE FITTING WITHIN THE GUIDELINES FOR, FOR SIZE. SO OUT OF ALL THE EIGHT POINTS THAT, UH, THAT WE'VE APPLIED FOR, THIS WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAD, UH, THIS SMALL ISSUE. UM, ALSO, I, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THERE, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF WALL SIGNS ON THIS BLOCK, UH, AT THE RAINFOREST CAFE. I I, YOU COULD SEE THEM ON, UH, I, I DON'T HAVE A, A LARGE PHOTO OF THEM, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS ON SHEET NUMBER TWO, YEAH, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THEM IN THE, IN THE BACKGROUND. ARE THOSE ON THE, ON THE STREET? OKAY. UH, THERE IS ONE, THERE IS ONE ON THE STREET. IT'S, IT'S BARELY VISIBLE. IT'S ACTUALLY HIDDEN BEHIND THE, THE SIGN FROM C V S FROM THE POINT OF VIEW THAT I HAD TAKEN THE PHOTOGRAPH. BUT THERE IS ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH DOES NOT FACE THE STREET. OUR SIGN WE'RE PROPOSING TO, TO FACE THE STREET. I, YES. UM, OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY, BEFORE WE GET INTO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, CITIZEN COMMENTS? UH, YES. JUST ONE FROM PATTY ZIONS, CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO, CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK AT TWO 15 LA SOYA. SPECIFICALLY IN REGARD TO ITEM FIVE, ADDITIONALLY, IT IS UNCLEAR FROM THE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS WHAT SEALANT IS TO BE USED ON THE HISTORIC MASONRY AND WHETHER THE SEALANT IS NECESSARY. ALRIGHT. YEAH, THAT WAS, WELL, LET'S DO THE SIGNAGE FIRST. AND THEN I DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE, UH, SEALING THE BRICK. SO, UM, QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION ON SIGNAGE. UH, I, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT WHE WHETHER THE SIGN IS A PRIMARY SIGN OR A SECONDARY SIGN, MEANING WHETHER THE PRIMARY SIGN IS ON THE RIVER OR, OR THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE IS ON THE RIVER, OR IS THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE, UM, AT, AT THIS FACADE? IS THERE ANY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THAT OR THE STREET BEHIND IT OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE? WELL, WE ARE GONNA BE USING BOTH ENTRANCES, UH, BOTH FROM THE RIVER AND FROM THE STREET. UH, WE WANNA DRAW AS MUCH BUSINESS IN HERE AS POSSIBLE. UH, AS YOU'RE AWARE, ON THE RIVER, WE'RE ONLY ALLOWED A TWO FOOT BY TWO FOOT SIGN, SO I WOULD CONSIDER THIS OUR PRIMARY SIGN ON THE STREET. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER. I'M SORRY. UH, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER GROUP. WELL, I WAS JUST, UH, THINKING BECAUSE THE RAINFOREST AND THE C V S HAVE THOSE DOUBLE-SIDED HANGING SIGNS AND YOU WILL HAVE A DOUBLE-SIDED HANGING SIGN. NO SOYA IS NOT REALLY A STREET WHERE YOU PARK, UM, OR LIKE VERY, YOU KNOW, THROUGH BUSY STREET WHERE YOU DRIVE THROUGH. WOULDN'T THE HANGING SIGN JUST BE ENOUGH? LIKE THE CURRENT, UH, BUILDINGS HAVE, THE CURRENT TENANTS HAVE, [03:00:03] LIKE THE C V S AND THE RAINFOREST? I MEAN, HOW MUCH WILL THAT ATTRACT? THAT'S A QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT. YEAH, I MEAN, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT SIGNAGE THERE FOR SURE. UH, I THINK IT WOULD HELP DRAW, UH, DEFINITELY MORE BUSINESS. I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN OTHER RESTAURANTS THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN HERE PREVIOUSLY. THE, YOU KNOW, THE SPACE IS VACANT NOW. SO WE THINK THAT IS DEF THAT IS DEFINITELY A PRIMARY, UH, UH, CAPTURING, UH, A PRIMARY WAY FOR US TO CAPTURE MORE BUSINESS COMING OFF THE STREET. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. I'VE GOT A QUESTION. UM, I DID GOOGLE EARTH UP AND DOWN THIS, THIS STREET, AND, UH, IT'S A VARIETY OF STOREFRONT RIGHT OUT AT THE FACE OF THE MASONRY OR RECESS STOREFRONTS. AND, UH, THERE IS OTHER SIGNAGE ON BUILDING STOREFRONTS. SO WOULD YOU CONSIDER, UH, IF YOU, IF YOU FEEL YOU NEED ANOTHER SIGN, WOULD YOU CONSIDER, UH, PROPOSING ONE ON WHERE YOUR STOREFRONT IS, WHICH IS BEHIND THAT, UH, CENTER ARCH, UH, LIKE THE EXISTING ONE THAT'S IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH RATHER THAN ON THE, THE FACE OF THE BUILDING? IT'D BE SET BACK WHERE YOUR FRONT DOOR IS? UH, WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT, BUT UH, IT'S, THAT VISUAL BECOMES OBSCURED BECAUSE OF THE ARCHWAYS. UH, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE IT ON THE PRIMARY FACADE OF THE BUILDING. UH, UNDER THE GUIDELINES, WE ARE ALLOWED THREE SIGNS. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO ASK, ASK YOU A QUESTION. I MEAN, WITH RESPECT TO, UH, YOUR, YOUR WISDOM AND, AND AND PRESERVATION. UH, WHEN, WHEN LOOKING AT THE BUILDING AND, AND THE FRONT, THAT OTHER FACADE WHEN, WHEN LOOKING AT THE FRONT, UM, IT, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY APPARENT THAT THE BUILDING IS DESIGNED TO TAKE A SIGN RIGHT AT THAT SPOT, OR AT LEAST AT THAT, AT THAT, AT THAT MIDDLE, UH, SPACE. SO IN, IN A WAY IT'S, IT, IT'S, IT'S ALMOST COUNTER TO THE INTENT OF THE SPACE THAT WAS CREATED TO RECEIVE A SIGN. AND I'M WONDERING IF, IF, IF PERHAPS IT'S MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THERE TO BE A SIGN ON THIS BUILDING AT THAT LOCATION. AND I KNOW THAT'S A STRETCH. THERE ISN'T. I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE GOOGLE EARTH ZOOMING IN. I DON'T SEE EVIDENCE OF, UH, ANY OTHER SIGN IN THAT HORIZONTAL BAND. BUT, BUT BACK AT THOSE DAYS, THEY WOULD LIKE PAINT IT AND THEY WOULD, THE SIGN, THE SIGN WOULD BE ON THE BRICK IN THAT AREA THAT IS, THAT IS PROPORTIONED NOT FOR ANY ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT, BUT FLAT. IT'S A, IT'S APPEAR, IT APPEARS LIKE A LOT OF THE OLD SAN ANTONIO SIGNS WERE PAINTED ON THE WALL ITSELF. LIKE THE EMPIRE DEER HAD A, ON THE, THE, THE PRINCE, THE, THE, THE PRINCE DEER HAD. UH, WELL THEN AS DURING THEIR RESTORATION, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO STRIP THE PAINT OFF THE BRICK. IF THERE'S EVIDENCE OF A HISTORIC PAINTED SIGN ON THERE, I THINK THEY COULD COME BACK AND, AND REQUEST TO, UH, TO DO A NEW ONE. I WOULD ADVISE THAT INSPECTION TO THE OWNER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THE SIGNAGE? I, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, I'M SORRY, I WAS TALKING OVER SOMEBODY. I'LL LET YOU GO AHEAD. YES, THIS IS . THE, THE APPLICANT. UH, THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS, UH, SIGNAGE HUNG ON THAT, UH, BAND BEFORE. UH, THERE'S ABANDONED, UH, AN ABANDONED ELECTRICAL BOX THAT THAT KIND OF LED UP TO THERE. AND ALSO THERE ARE, UH, PERFORATIONS IN THE BRICK OF, UH, THAT WOULD BE KIND OF CONSISTENT WITH A, WITH A SIGN HAVING BEEN ON THAT LOCATION. UH, UNFORTUNATELY, I, I DON'T HAVE CLOSE ENOUGH PICTURES OF THAT, BUT YES, I DO SEE THAT. AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ANOTHER BLADE SIGN. IF I WAS TO INTERPRET THE, THE EVIDENCE THERE, IT MAY HAVE BEEN AN ILLUMINATED BLADE SIGN, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT IT, IT HAD BEEN A BLADE SIGN. OKAY. [03:05:02] SO CHAIR, UM, I JUST TOOK GOOGLE EARTH DOWN THE STREET AS WELL, AND I COULDN'T SEE ANY BUILDINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE, UM, A FULL SIGN LIKE THAT OTHER THAN THE BLADE SIGNS. RIGHT. I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T SEE IT. I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY EVIDENCE ON THE STREET. AND THIS IS A ONE WAY STREET THAT IS NARROW. AND I DON'T KNOW IF, UM, I MEAN ARE YOU PLANNING ON PEOPLE PARKING THERE AND I'M TRYING TO DROP OFF? IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF DON'T WANNA CREATE THAT EITHER. I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PARK. I I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PARK IN FRONT OF THAT. I THINK THAT'S A LOADING ZONE, SIR. I, I WOULD CORRECT IT'S A LOADING ZONE. I WOULD RECOMMEND A SLIGHT STRIPPING OF SOME PAINT THERE BECAUSE IT, IT, IT TO, TO ME THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH A PAINTED SIGN ON THE WALL OF WE CAN'T ALLOW FOR PAINTED ON THE BRICK. WELL, WELL, NO, NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THAT THE APPLICANT LOOK AT THE BUILDING AND LET THE BUILDING SPEAK TO US. IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF THE BUILDING HAVING HAD A SIGN, IN WHICH CASE WOULDN'T MATTER WHAT WE THINK THE BUILDING IS, WE WOULD DEFER TO THE BUILDING. BUT OF COURSE, YOU'D HAVE TO GO IN THERE AND LOOK FOR SHADOWS, LOOK FOR, UH, UH, GHOSTS OF, OF AN EXISTING 'CAUSE IT ALSO IMPLICATES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. ALL, ALL OF THE THINGS. JUST LOOK AT, LOOK AT IT AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE YOU WOULD PUT THE SIGN IF YOU WERE DOING IT BACK IN THE TURN OF THE CENTURY. IT'S INTUITIVE. THIS COMMISSIONER FISH. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR, UM, FOR THIS PRIMARY SIGN, HAD YOU, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED, UH, A ILLUMINATED BLADE SIGN THAT MIGHT GET GREATER VISIBILITY FROM UP AND DOWN THE STREET RATHER THAN ONE THAT'S FACED ON THE BUILDING? WELL, I THOUGHT THAT, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT PORTIONS OF THE REGULATIONS, BUT I, I, I THOUGHT THAT BLADE SIGNS WERE DISCOURAGED, UH, AND, AND WEREN'T ALLOWED TO HANG OVER THE SIDEWALKS IN THIS DISTRICT. I, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT, UH, GUIDELINE FOR THAT. BUT YEAH, I MEAN, IF, IF WE COULD DO A A IF WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO A LARGER ILLUMINATED, UH, BLADE SIGN, SO WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT. I'LL, I'LL PASS THIS OFF TO STAFF JUST TO, MAYBE THEY CAN ROUND OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF BLADE SIGN, BUT THERE, THERE'S AN ESTABLISHED PATTERN OF BLADE SIGNS ON THIS BLOCK. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE IS GENERALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE STRUCTURE. IT'S REALLY THE CONTEXT OF THE BLOCK THAT DOESN'T HAVE SIGNAGE LIKE THIS, BUT THERE, THERE ARE BLADE SIGNS ON THE BLOCK. CAN STAFF SPEAK TO APPROPRIATENESS OF A BLADE SIGN HERE THAT MAY ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING? WE HAVE HAD SOME ELIMINATED , ACTUALLY THERE'S A BLADE SIGN PROPOSED IN THIS APPLICATION, WHICH STAFF HAS APPROVED OR RECOMMENDED. YEAH, I GUESS THE WORD BLADE SIGN IS JUST, IT'S A HANGING DOUBLE-SIDED SIGN. SO COMMISSIONER FI, IT'S NOT LIKE A FULL BLADE UP. I THINK MAYBE YOU WERE THINKING YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. COMMISSIONER FISH, RIGHT? THE BLADE SIGN THAT'S PROPOSED IS THAT, I THINK THAT'S ON THE RIVERWALK SIDE. THERE'S ALSO ON THE LASSO, RIGHT? THE LASSO SIDE, YEAH. SO THAT IS, THAT IS PROPOSED. THE SIGN THAT THE APP GO AHEAD EDWARD. OH, SORRY. I WAS GONNA SAY THE BLADE SIGN THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED IS RELATIVELY COMPARABLE TO THOSE THAT ARE FOUND OR THAT CURRENTLY EXIST ON THE BLOCK. SO THE BLADE SIGN IS BEING PROPOSED ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE ELEVATION IN A WAY THAT WOULD ACTUALLY OBSTRUCT THE, THE SIGNAGE THAT'S FACED ON THE BUILDING. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S POSITIONED QUITE HIGH. CAN WE GO TO THE, I THINK IT'S, UH, SHEET 14. SO I SEE THE DOUBLE-SIDED BLADE SIGN THERE. I'M WONDERING IF, AND THE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S IN THE SCALE THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE BLOCK FACE AS PROPOSED EDWARD? GENERALLY, I MEAN, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF, OF BLADE, ACTUALLY THE PREDOMINANT TYPE OF SIGN ON THIS BLOCK IS, IS A BLADE SIGN, AS YOU CAN SEE, C V S, UM, I BELIEVE DICK'S LAST RESORT. UH, AND THEN A HANDFUL OF THE BARS THAT ARE CLOSER TOWARD COMMERCE. UH, THOSE EACH FEATURE BLADE SIGN. SO THE BLADE SIGN THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED IS COMPARABLE TO, TO THOSE THAT CURRENTLY EXIST. UM, AND IT DID, AND IT DID HAVE A BLADE SIGN BECAUSE THERE'S A BRACKET THERE NOW. I, I, MS. COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, YOU KNOW, GO TO THE, GO TO THE PICTURE OF THE, WHERE THE DICK'S LAST RESORT SIGN IS, IF YOU COULD PLEASE, STEPH. OKAY. SO YOU SEE THE LAST RESORT BLADE SIGN THAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND APPROVABLE. NOW THE FRONT FACADE OF THIS BUILDING, IT SEEMS THAT IT COULD YOU GO TO THE IMAGE THAT SHOWS THE, THE PROPOSED SIGN ON THE FACADE [03:10:03] WITH, WITH, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS AESTHETICALLY APPEALING AND, AND REALLY SOFT? THIS IS A MUCH, UM, I, I THINK, UM, SIGN IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE ACTUAL ARCHITECTURE ITSELF. THERE'S ONE ISSUE THAT I WOULD THINK IS, IS REALLY THE, UH, THE, THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THAT IT'S SLIGHTLY OVERSCALED. IT'S A LITTLE TOO CLOSE TO THE DENTALS ABOVE AND A LITTLE TOO CLOSE TO THE, TO THE BOTTOM BAND THAT IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS SCALED DOWN, NOT SPEAKING ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF A SIGN, BUT IN TERMS OF AN ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT, THAT IT WAS SCALED DOWN A LITTLE BIT TO GET AWAY FROM THE BANDS, THAT IT IS ACTUALLY A PERFECT SOLUTION TO SIGNAGE. THE BLADE SIGNS THAT ARE THERE, WE'RE USING THEM AS EXAMPLES, AND THEY REALLY ARE GIVING, IT IS MY OPINION, ARE REALLY JUST SHOWING EXAMPLES FROM WHY THAT STREET IS GETTING UGLIER AND UGLIER AND UGLIER. THI THIS IS, THIS IS REALLY A, UM, A, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, A BUILDING THAT IS A RESTAURANT TO ACT LIKE A RESTAURANT AND TO BE UNASHAMED OF THE FACT THAT IT IS A RESTAURANT THAT HAS TO HAVE PEOPLE BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THAT IS WHAT IS ACTIVATING THE ARCHITECTURE. SO THEY, THEY EXIST TOGETHER. I, I, I THINK, AND, AND WHEN YOU PUT THAT SIGN IN THAT BAND, IT REESTABLISHES THE SYMMETRY AND AN OTHERWISE IN UNSYMMETRICAL FACADE. UM, AND IT, YOU KNOW, IT, I, I, I, I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE BEST SOLUTION FOR THE GENERAL AESTHETIC OF THE STREET THAT'S GONNA SPEAK TO TOURISTS ABOUT SAN ANTONIO. THIS IS THE WAY TO GO RIGHT HERE, MY OPINION. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'VE GOT, UH, A COUPLE MORE ISSUES TO DEAL WITH AND THEN I'M GONNA REQUEST A MOTION. UM, YOU MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION THAT YOU'RE GONNA STRIP THE BRICK AND REPOINT, UH, WHICH IS ADMIRABLE. UH, BUT YOU ALSO MENTIONED SEALING THE BRICK AND WONDERING WHY YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO SEAL THE BRICK. 'CAUSE TYPICALLY, UH, SEALERS ARE, UM, NOT RECOMMENDED FOR MASONRY BECAUSE IT TRAPS THE MOISTURE, UH, BETWEEN THE SEALER AND THE MASONRY, AND IT ACTUALLY STARTS DETERIORATING THE MASONRY. SO WONDERING WHY YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO SEAL THE BRICK AFTER YOU, UH, STRIPPED THE PAINT OFF? UH, YES. FIRST I WANTED TO SAY, UH, THANK YOU TO MR. VELAZQUEZ FOR THOSE COMMENTS. AND, UH, SPEAKING TO, TO HIS COMMENT ALSO ON THE SIGN ON THE WALL, WE WOULD CONSIDER, UH, SCALING IT DOWN SOMEWHAT SO THAT WE WOULD FIT, UH, BETTER WITHIN THAT BAND AND BE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, UH, SEPARATED FROM THE EXISTING STONE, UH, ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS THAT ARE ON THAT BAND. UH, WE WOULD CONSIDER MAKING THE SIGN SLIGHTLY SMALLER TO GIVE THOSE FEATURES A LITTLE BIT MORE SEPARATION FROM THE SIGNAGE. UM, AND THEN SPEAKING TO NOW TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE SEALER. SO ESSENTIALLY THIS BRICK RIGHT NOW IS SEALED BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PAINTED OVER, UH, SEVERAL, SEVERAL TIMES. UH, UH, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS TO CLEAN, RE, AND RESTORE BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL LOOK. AND, UH, TODAY THEY DO HAVE MODERN SEALERS THAT ALLOW, UH, FOR GAS TO PERMEATE OUT. SO ANY MOISTURE THAT IS TRAPPED BEHIND THE, THE BRICK WILL BE ABLE TO PERMEATE OUT. IT'S JUST GONNA KEEP, UH, THE BRICK FROM ABSORBING ANY MORE WATER AND RAIN FROM THE EXTERIOR. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO. GIVEN THE AGE AND THE CONDITION THAT, THAT THIS IS IN, YOU KNOW, WE STILL DON'T KNOW A HUNDRED PERCENT EXACTLY WHAT CONDITION THIS BRICK IS IN, BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN SEALED, IT HAS, IT TECHNICALLY HAS BEEN SEALED BY THIS PAINT FOR THAT LONG, I DON'T WANT TO ALLOW, UH, THE INTRODUCTION OF THAT MOISTURE BACK INTO, INTO THE STRUCTURE. SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE RECOMMENDING A SEALER ON THIS, THAT IT WOULD BE A CLEAR SEALER, UH, THAT WOULD NOT, IT WOULD NOT ADD ANY SHEEN TO THE BRICK ITSELF. OKAY. IF, IF THIS, UH, COMMISSION APPROVES THE SEALER, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, UH, THE PRODUCT DATA BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS A, UH, BREATHABLE SEALER. YES. UM, ARE WE CLOSE ENOUGH TO GET A MOTION OUT ON THE TABLE? CAN STEPH, CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT, THAT WHAT IS BEFORE US IS [03:15:01] A, A OF, OF A FACADE OF OF SIGN, A BLADE SIGN, UM, THE STRIPPING OF THE, OF THE EXISTING PAINT AND THE CEILING OF THE BRICK. IS THAT ALL THAT'S BEFORE US? NOW? WE'LL PUT, PUT THE REQUEST ITEM ON THE SCREEN CHAIR. I'LL DO A MOTION. THANK YOU. UM, ACTUALLY I WANTED TO GO TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT, UM, IT'S, SCROLL DOWN TO THE STIPULATIONS. YEAH, THANK YOU. SO I APPROVE ITEM ONE THROUGH FOUR AND SIX THROUGH EIGHT WITH STAFF STIPULATION. AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT FOR ITEM FIVE, UM, I MEAN, I WOULD SUGGEST NOT APPROVAL OR IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO COME BACK WITH A REVISED DESIGN ON A SMALLER SCALE OR WE'LL COME BACK, CAN, CAN STEP SCROLL TO ITEM FIVE. THAT IS THE FRONT FACING SIGN ON , UH, UH, COMMISSIONER GROUP. WOULD YOU CONSIDER LEAVING IT TO THE DISCRETION OF STAFF CONSIDERING THAT THE, NO, I HAVE A HARD TIME ACCEPTING IT BECAUSE OF THE REST OF THE, WHAT'S FOUND ON THE REST OF THE STREET, AND THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY PROOF THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT TYPE OF SIGN ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD ADD SIGNAGE WHERE IT'S NOT NECESSARY. I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH SIGNAGE. I THINK MOST OF THE PUBLIC WILL COME FROM THE REAR WALK MORE THAN THE SOYA. SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ? I SECOND MOTION A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? UH, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. FIVE IS THE FLAT SIGN ON THE FACADE YES. OF LUSO OF THE SOYA? SO THIS MOTION WOULD BE A DENIAL OF THAT SIGN, BUT THE APPLICANT COULD COME BACK TO STAFF WITH A REDUCED SIZE AND POTENTIALLY V H R C COULD ACT ON THAT IN THE FUTURE. THEY COULD REVISE THE PROPOSAL FOR THAT SIGN. UH, CORY, COULD YOU GO TO, COULD YOU GO TO THE FACADE WHEN THE SIGN OF THE SIGN, BUT IT WOULD NEED TO GO BACK TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION? RIGHT? I, I WOULD JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST, I JUST WANT TO, IF YOU COULD ZOOM IN ON THAT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. I'D LIKE TO, BUT WHERE IS DISCUSSION, RIGHT? THIS COULD ALSO OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION. IF THERE'S MORE PROOF THAT A SIGNAGE WAS THERE, THE APPLICANT CAN COME BACK WITH MORE PROOF IF THEY WOULD LIKE. RIGHT. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A FIRST, SECOND DISCUSSION, RIGHT. IF IT'S PERTINENT TO THE MOTION, YES, IT IS. UH, THERE'S A VERY INTERESTING FACADE WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUEST FOR A SIGN. YOU NOTICE THE BAND ABOVE OF AN INSET BRICK RHYTHM HAS BEEN CREATED, RIGHT? SO YOU HAVE THE LINE OF DENTALS AND THEN YOU HAVE THIS INSET BAND OF BRICK IN A BUILDING THAT IS OTHERWISE SYMMETRICAL. RIGHT? SO A QUESTION THEN CAN, CAN, YOU KNOW, THE ASSUMPTION CAN BE MADE RIGHT? THAT WHERE IS THE EFFORT TO PROVE THAT THE SYMMETRY OF THIS BUILDING IS, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ASYMMETRY OF THE BUILDING. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BAND, YOU SEE THE EFFORT OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGNER TO PUT AN INSET IN THE BRICK IN THE BAND, BUT THAT INSET WAS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE DESIGNER TO SAY LET'S REPLICATE THAT INSET ABOVE AND BELOW, WHICH, WHICH REALLY IS KIND OF A TO, TO ME VERY ELEMENTARY, UH, UH, INDICATION THAT THAT FLAT PIECE IS THERE FOR A VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSE BECAUSE THEY CHOSE NOT TO INSET THE BRICK BELOW AS ABOVE OF NOT COMING BACK AND FORTH. RIGHT. WITH THIS I'D ASK COMMISSIONER GROUP TO PLEASE CONSIDER, UH, EN ENABLING THIS, THIS FACADE SO THAT IN THE INTEREST OF ALL THE CASES THAT WE GET, THAT THIS IS KIND OF AN EASY ONE THAT IS REALLY JUST A SLIGHT ISSUE OF SCALE THAT STAFF CAN HANDLE AND THEN THEY CAN GO UP AND DO THEIR THING AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. UH, JUST TAKE A SECOND TO CONSIDER IT. I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE. LET'S SEE HOW THE VOTE GOES. THE APPLICANT. CAN I ADD TO THE COMMENT? YES, SIR. UH, OKAY. IN, IN LINE WITH MR. VELAZQUEZ'S RECOMMENDATION, THE INDENTATION OF THE BRICK THAT IS ON THAT BAND THAT I, I WILL REFER TO NOW AS THE SIGNAGE BAND BECAUSE IT IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD THE SIGNAGE. YES. THE ONE THAT YOU'RE HIGHLIGHTING THERE. [03:20:01] I WILL, I I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE WOULD SCALE OUR SIGNAGE DOWN TO FIT WITHIN THE HEIGHT, TO FIT WITHIN THE HEIGHT OF WHAT THAT RECESSED BRICK RIGHT NOW ALLOWS AND KEEPING IT IN THE SAME LOCATION THAT WE ARE. THAT WAY THE SEPARATION OF THE ACTUAL SIGNAGE, UH, WOULD BE IN HARMONY AND COINCIDE WITH THE SEPARATION THAT THAT BRICK INDENTATION ALREADY NATURALLY CREATES TO THE STONE ELEMENT THAT IS ABOVE AND TO THE STONE, UH, DETAIL ELEMENT THAT IS BELOW. BUT YOU'RE PROPOSING IT IN THE CENTER OF THE, WHERE YOU SHOWED IT BEFORE AND UNDER THE CENTER WINDOW. CORRECT. SO THE SIGN ITSELF, IF WE, IF WE COULD GO TO, UH, WELL, LET ME THE ELEVATION. EXCUSE ME SIR. LET ME ASK COMMISSIONER IF SHE CONSIDER THAT. IF NOT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND I'D LIKE TO TAKE A VOTE. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A VOTE. THANK YOU. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? I AM SO SORRY. FERNANDEZ. AYE FISH. NAY GIBBS, NAYYY VELASQUEZ, NAY AREOLA, NAY, UH, GROUP? AYE. ZER? AYE. UNE, ARE YOU WITH US STILL? AYE. OKAY, SO THAT IS FOUR TO FOUR. UH, MOTION FAILS. WE WOULD NEED A NEW MOTION. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS ONE THROUGH FOUR, SIX THROUGH EIGHT WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE WITH THE, UH, SIGNAGE MATERIAL AND ILLUMINATION, UH, LANGUAGE THAT THE APPLICANT AGREED TO BUT ISN'T IN THE PROPOSAL HERE, UH, REDUCED TO A SCALE THAT FITS WITHIN THE RED LINES ILLUSTRATED ON THE SCREEN AND IS CENTERED ON, ON THE CENTER WINDOW. I'LL ASK A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I I HAVE ONE QUESTION. I, I, I HOPE IT'S, I I HOPE IT'S RELEVANT. UH, JUST FOR THE, FOR, ARE YOU CONSIDERING, UH, REPLACING AT, AT ANY TIME THE WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE HAD AN AWNING AN, AN AWNING ON THIS BUILDING? UH, ON, NOT ON THE STREET SIDE. OKAY. I, I DON'T KNOW THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN AWNING ON THE STREET SIDE. UH, WE ARE REPLACING THE AWNING ON THE RIVERSIDE. OKAY. JUST, JUST THANK WE HAVE, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MAY YOU HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? ACTUALLY, CHAIRMAN, I THOUGHT THE STIPULATION ABOUT THE CLEAR, THE CLEAR THE SPECIFICS ON THE, THE SEALER. I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER FISH WANTS TO ADD THAT, IF THAT'S A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD THAT THE SPECIFICATION OF THE SEALANT BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW, FOR APPROVAL, UH, AMENDED AS SO IS THAT SECONDED? SECONDED AS SO OR AS SUCH? THANK YOU. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELAZQUEZ AYE. AREOLA. AYE GROUP. AYE. FETZER NAY, HON. NAY. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, ITEM 39. [39. 21-1923 Address/Description: 917 HAYS ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-042 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Matthew & Somer Barburek Request: Amendment to approve rear porch design and façade modifications, Historic Tax Verification City Council Dist.: 2] RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? YES. ITEM NUMBER 39 H C R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 0 4 2 9 17 HAZE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE INSTALL SIMPLIFIED FRONT PORCH COLUMNS TWO, REMOVE FRONT GABLE DETAILING. THREE, INSTALL FRONT WOOD PLANTERS. FOUR, INSTALL ROUNDED REAR PORCH, STEPS SIZE INSTALL WOOD FRAME CATTLE PANEL REAR REAR PORCH HANDRAIL SIX, INSTALL FAUX STONE REAR PORCH DECKING. SEVEN, MODIFY THE FENESTRATION PATTERN ON THE REAR ADDITION. AND EIGHT, HISTORIC TAX VERIFICATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEMS ONE THROUGH EIGHT BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH L WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION, ONE THAT THE APPLICANT RESTORES THE GABLE DETAILING TO THE FRONT FACADE PRIOR TO RECEIVING THE SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION TAX INCENTIVE. THE APPLICANT WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION TAX INCENTIVE ONCE THE PROPERTY HAS COME [03:25:01] INTO COMPLIANCE. AND AS A CASE COMMENT, THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER, UM, APPLIED FOR, APPLIED FOR, UM, THE SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION TAX INCENTIVE. AND DURING THE VERIFICATION PROCESS, STAFF OBSERVED THAT A NUMBER OF ITEMS HAD, UM, BEEN COMPLETED BY THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER OUTSIDE OF APPROVALS. AND SO THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER HAS COME BEFORE THE H D R C TO GET APPROVAL FOR THOSE ITEMS TO MAKE THEM ELIGIBLE FOR HISTORIC TAX VERIFICATION. AND WE HAVE THE APPLICANT MATTHEW, ON THE LINE. MATTHEW, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THE COMMISSIONERS. GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, PLEASE. OKAY. UM, YEAH, I'M, UH, MATT WICK. I'M THE, MYSELF AND MY FAMILY LIVE HERE AT NINE 17 HAYES. UM, WE MOVED IN DECEMBER OF 2019. DURING THE PROCESS OF OF PURCHASING THE HOME, WE HAD LEARNED THAT THE PREVIOUS HOMEOWNER HAD STARTED THE PROCESS BACK IN 2017 OF, UM, OF GETTING THE, UH, SUB SUBSTANTIAL, UH, REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT. UM, SO DURING THAT PROCESS WE WERE TOLD EVERYTHING WAS GOING FINE AND AND WHATNOT. AND SO WHEN I CONTINUED IT AFTER WE PURCHASED IT, UH, UH, PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, I GUESS, UH, LIKE RACHEL SAID, FOUND A, UH, A FEW ITEMS THAT WERE DONE OUTSIDE OF APPROVAL. AND SO REALLY I'M LOOKING FOR APPROVAL OF THOSE ITEMS SO THAT WE CAN QUALIFY FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL, UH, UH, REHAB TAX, UH, INCENTIVE. THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS? WE DO HAVE ONE SC SUBMITTED BY SCOTT, EXCUSE ME, SCOTT. ALBERT, ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL, UH, NEIGHBORS IN DIGNITY HILL, WE DO NOT SUPPORT OSPS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TAX VERIFICATION, PRIMARILY DUE TO THE HIGH AMOUNT OF NON-CONFORMING AND UNREVIEWED WORK WE DID DURING THE PAST TWO YEARS. THE LIST REVIEWED ITEMS IN THIS HEARING IS ADDITIONAL TO WHERE PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED WITHOUT APPROVALS, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF A CHIMNEY AND REPLACEMENT OF NON-ORIGINAL WINDOWS. THE HP'S TAX CREDIT PROGRAM WAS CREATED AS AN INCENTIVE TO ENCOURAGE PROPERTY OWNERS TO FOLLOW A PROCESS AND TO INVEST MORE TO QUAL QUALITY REHABILITATION AND REPAIR, ALL WITH THE GOAL OF SAVING A BUILDING. HOWEVER MANY RECENT VERIFICATION REQUESTS HAVE NONCONFORMING WORK OR AS IN THIS, AS IN THIS CASE, INCORRECT OR NON-APPROVED WORK. TOO MANY OF THESE CASES HAVE CHANGED THE INTENT OF THE PROGRAM AND NOW HOMEOWNERS AND INVESTORS THINK THAT A FINISHED PROJECT AS A TAX CREDIT PROJECT JUST FINISH YOUR PROJECT AND GO GET YOUR MONEY. AND THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. THANK YOU. UH, QUESTION, UM, MR. BARRICK, UH, STAFF'S COMMENT ABOUT RESTORING THE GABLE DETAILING AND ON THE, THE FRONT FACADE, ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT? UH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A, A PROBLEM THE WAY IT IS, BUT, UM, ON THE PREVIOUS HOME THERE WAS THE GLING, UM, I GUESS THAT WAS MISSED ORIGINALLY. UH, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, UH, RESTORING THAT. UM, SO, UH, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF ON THAT. UM, ACCORDING TO THE, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE COMMENT, WITH RESPECT TO THE CHIMNEY, I THINK ORIGINALLY THAT CHIMNEY WAS REMOVED, BUT THEN DURING THE PROCESS, UM, THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PREVIOUS HOMEOWNER DID GO BACK AND RESTORE THAT CHIMNEY. SO, UH, THAT'S KIND OF A MOOT POINT ON THAT ONE. THAT WAS A PREVIOUS VIOLATION CASE. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEE THE TWO IMAGES TOGETHER, THE EXIST, THE, THE NEW AND THE OLD? WE CAN KIND OF TOGGLE BACK AND FORTH. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. THE, THE VIOLATION OF THE CHIMNEY OR THE FLU ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND IT'S JUST NOT VISIBLE. RACHEL, CAN YOU VERIFY YOU'VE DONE THE SITE VISIT? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT EXTREMITY? IS THERE CORRECT? IT IS, YES. I DON'T HAVE ANY, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN A MOTION? YES, PLEASE. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS ONE THROUGH EIGHT BASED ON SAS FINDINGS AND STIPULATION ONE THAT THE GABLE DETAILING BE RESTORED. SECOND. YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION AND ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. QUEZ. AYE. AREOLA. AYE. GROUP. AYE. BOWMAN. OH, SORRY. FETZER. AYE. LA I THINK WE'VE LOST COMMISSIONER LAO, BUT MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. ITEM 40, WE [40. 21-1924 Address/Description: 800 NAVARRO ST/ROW near 304 E Pecan HDRC Case No.: 2021-072 Applicant: Kevin Bowyer/Modus LLC Request: Replace an existing streetlight pole with a new pole with network node equipment City Council Dist.: 1] [03:30:17] YES, COMMISSIONERS. HELLO. UH, THE NEXT FOUR ITEMS ARE, UH, POLL REQUESTS RETURNING TO YOU. TWO OF THEM ARE NEW POLES WHERE POLLS DIDN'T EXIST AND TWO OF THEM ARE STREETLIGHT REPLACEMENT POLES, WHICH WERE PULLED FROM, UH, THE AGENDA IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS. UH, THE APPLICANT IS READY TO ADDRESS ALL FOUR. UM, THERE'S ALSO A, ALSO A, UH, A, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE READ FIRST, UH, BEFORE I GO INTO INDIVIDUAL, UH, LOCATIONS AND REQUEST LANGUAGE. THANKS. WE, UM, SO WE DO, WE MIGHT'VE MADE THIS HARDER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE. WE HAVE FOUR SEPARATE ITEMS 'CAUSE THERE'S FOUR DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. UM, THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED FOR ALL FOUR. SO, UH, PAT ZIONS, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO, OPPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF UNDIFFERENTIATED CELLULAR NODE STREETLIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND ESPECIALLY IN A STORED DISTRICTS WHERE THESE CELLULAR ANTENNA WITH ADDED STREETLIGHTS ARE UNGAINLY AND DESIGN AND CLUTTER. THE HISTORIC STREETSCAPE DURING THE PILOT PROGRAM IN DOWNTOWN LO IN DOWNTOWN LOCATIONS. WE EXPRESSED APPREHENSION ABOUT HOW THIS IS WOULD IMPACT A STORE DISTRICTS, ESPECIALLY AS, UM, THEY ARE TALLER THAN BUILDINGS IN MOST HISTORIC DISTRICTS. PILOT PROGRAM FOCUSED ON REPLACING EXISTING POLES SUCH AS THOSE BEFORE YOU HAD 800 NAVARRO AND 1119 SOUTH FLORES. WHILE THE INCREASED HEIGHT AND ELABORATION OF THE NEW POLES WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THESE TWO HISTORIC LOCATIONS, THE, THE UNPRECEDENTED NEW CONSTRUCTION CELLULAR NODE POLES AT 9 55 SOUTH ALAMO IN 1430 EAST HOUSTON ARE MORE CONCERNING AS THEY DEPART FROM THE SCOPE OF THE PILOT PROGRAM. THESE POLES ARE TALLER THAN SURROUNDING HISTORIC BUILDINGS, THE KING WILLIAM AND INUITY HILL DISTRICTS. UH, THESE POLES DO NOT RESPOND TO THEIR SPECIFIC SITE CONDITIONS. THIS APPROACH REVEALS A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. A DESIGN THAT IS SUCCESSFUL IN A DOWNTOWN LOCATION LIKE ALAMO PLAZA MAY NOT SUCCESSFULLY INTEGRATE INTO RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS LIKE KING WILLIAM AND INUITY HILL. IN THIS CASE, IT CLEARLY DOES NOT. AS EVIDENCED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION'S OPPOSITION TO THE NEW POLE IN 9 55 SOUTH ALAMO, WE SHARE THAT OPINION. MOREOVER, THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTEMPT TO PLACE THE CELLULAR NODES ON ROOFTOPS WHERE THEY SHOULD, WHERE THEY WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SHORE DISTRICTS IN SAN ANTONIO. WE CONTINUE TO OBJECT TO NEW OVERSIZED POLES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS IN SAN ANTONIO. SO WITH THAT, I CAN BEGIN THE FIRST ONE. CASE NUMBER 20 21 0 72 AT THE RIGHT OF WAY NEAR 3 0 4 EAST PECAN. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE THE EXISTING STREETLIGHT AT THE RIGHT OF WAY NEAR 3 0 4 EAST PECAN WITH A NEW POLE WITH NETWORK NODE EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOWNTOWN STREET LIGHT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM. I HAVE THE, UH, THE RENDERING ON THE SCREEN. KEVIN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND, AND GUIDE THE COMMISSION THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION. HEY THERE, MY NAME'S KEVIN BLAIR. I'M A CONSULTANT FOR VERIZON WIRELESS. UM, SO LIKE I MENTIONED, THIS APPLICATION IS FOR A NEW VERIZON WIRELESS SMALL CELL FACILITY, UH, TO BE LOCATED ON A REPLACED, UH, C P S STREETLIGHT. UM, AND YOU GUYS ARE PROBABLY AWARE, UM, THIS IS A MAJOR COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE WIRELESS CARRIERS, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, C P S O H P, UH, OVER THE COURSE OF LIKE A YEAR PLUS, UH, TO DEGREE TO AGREE ON A STANDARD DESIGN FOR THESE, UH, C P S POOR PLACEMENT SITES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. UH, SO THIS, THIS APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU, UM, ITEM 40 IS FOR US TO UTILIZE A A C P S, UH, PLACE DESIGN AND LOCATE A SMALL CELL ON IT. UM, WE WERE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, I THINK IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR. UM, AND IT WAS PULLED OFF THE AGENDA BY ONE OR TWO OF THE, UH, COMMISSIONERS, UH, DUE TO CONCERNS OVER THE, THE POLE REPLACEMENT LOCATION, UH, IN RELATION TO THE, THE FRONT F FACADE OF THAT ADJACENT BUILDING. UH, SO A WEEK OR SO AFTER THAT, UH, HEARING, WE MET WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE, UM, AND DISCUSSED IT AND THE DIRECTIVE WAS TO LOOK AT OPTIONS OF, OF SHIFTING THAT REPLACEMENT POLE LOCATION, EITHER THE, THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING OR THE EAST SIDE, UH, KIND OF IN BETWEEN, UH, THE ADJACENT BUILDING AND, AND THE ONE NEXT TO THAT BUILDING. UH, SO WE TOOK A LOOK, UM, AT, AT POTENTIALLY SHIFTING IT TO EITHER SIDE OF, OF THE BUILDING, UH, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, UH, IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE, FEASIBLE, UH, ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, UH, IN THE RIGHT OF WAY SIDEWALK AREA, THERE'S A, THERE'S A DRAINAGE DITCH AND, AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. UH, SO THERE, THERE WOULDN'T BE SPACE FOR US TO SUPPORT NEW FOUNDATION AND, AND IN PLACE [03:35:01] TO PULL THERE. AND THEN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, UH, THERE, THERE ALSO IS A DRAINAGE DITCH. AND UH, IF WE GO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, IT WOULD KIND OF ENCROACHING INTO, UH, THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR IS KIND OF, UH, PARKING, GARAGE ENTRY AND EXIT. UH, SO REALLY THERE ISN'T A WHOLE LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM IN THE REPLACEMENT LOCATION HERE. UM, SO WE'RE HOPING TO GET, GET SIGN OFF ON WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY KIND OF PROPOSED AND, UH, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY STAFF ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FROM OCTOBER. UH, THIS WAS CHAIRMAN FETZER AND I WAS ON THAT, UH, D R C REVIEW AND UH, WE REQUESTED THAT THEY INVESTIGATE MOVING IT TO ONE SIDE OF THE FACADE OR THE OTHER RATHER THAN KEEPING THE POLE IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE DONE THEIR RESEARCH AND FIND THAT, UH, AT EITHER END OF THIS FACADE, IT, IT IS NOT A, UH, GOOD CANDIDATE FOR A NEW LOCATION. UH, SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF, UH, REPLACING IT IN THE EXISTING LOCATION. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR INVESTIGATING THE POSSIBILITIES AND IMPROVE APPROVING THE SITUATION THERE. AND I SUPPORT STAFF'S FINDINGS. SO I MOVE FOR APPROVAL BASED ON STAFF'S FINDINGS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ. I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND MAY HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. HERANDEZ AYE FISH? AYE. GIBBS AYE. QUEZ AYE. AREOLA AYE GROUP. AYE THAT SIR? AYE, MOTION [41. 21-1925 Address/Description: 119 S FLORES ST/ROW near 121 S FLORES ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-074 Applicant: Kevin Bowyer/Modus LLC Request: Replace an existing streetlight pole with a new pole with network node equipment City Council Dist.: 1] CARRIES NUMBER 41 A AGENDA ITEM 41 20 21 0 74 AT THE RIGHT OF WAY NEAR 1 21 SOUTH FLORES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF A NESS TO REPLACE THE STREETLIGHT AT THE RIGHT OF WAY NEAR 1 21 SOUTH FLORES WITH A NEW POLE WITH NETWORK NOTE EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE STREETLIGHT REPLACEMENT PROGRAM. AND I HAVE THE RENDERING ON THE SCREEN. AND KEVIN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THE FINDINGS, RIGHT. UH, SO AGAIN, IT'S A SIMILAR SITUATION AS THE LAST ONE. UH, AT A, IN THE SAME, UH, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING, THEY ASKED US TO POTENTIALLY LOOK AT, UM, SHIFTING IT TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT OF THE BUILDING. UM, THE FACADE, UM, SO ON THIS ONE, UH, C P SS IS, UH, KIND OF SKEPTICAL ON IF THEY'RE GONNA ALLOW US TO SHIFT IT OR NOT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE LIGHTING, UH, IN THE, ON THE, ALONG THAT STREET SCAPE. UH, SINCE WE'RE, WE WOULD HAVE TO BE SHIFTING IT 15 TO 20 FEET. SO, UM, THEY REQUESTED A, A PHOTOMETRIC STUDY, UM, RECENTLY, UH, AFTER DISCUSSIONS AND GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THEM, UH, THAT STUDY IS, HAS NOT YET BEEN FINALIZED. UH, SO WE DO NOT KNOW IF C P S WILL ALLOW US TO, TO SHIFT, UH, THAT PULL IS NOW TO THE, THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT OF THE BUILDING. UM, SO IT IS PENDING THE PHOTOMETRIC STUDY, BUT WE STILL WANTED TO, TO SEE IF IT WAS POTENTIALLY, UM, PROVABLE AT, AT THE, AT LOCATION WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THAT WAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY STAFF OR IF YOU CAN AT LEAST CONDITION APPROVAL, UM, ONCE THAT PHOTOMETRIC STUDY. AND WE DO HAVE CPSS ALLOWANCE, UH, TO SHIFT THAT OR IF THEY SAY THEY'RE NOT GONNA APPROVE IT, UM, IF WE CAN CONDITION THE APPROVAL OF THE ORIGINAL LOCATION. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. AND AGAIN, WE DID, UH, DISCUSS THIS WITH MR. BAUER AND ASKED HIM TO STUDY AND TALK TO C P SS TO SEE IF IT COULD BE MOVED TO ONE SIDE OF THE BUILDING OR THE OTHER. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE SOME, UH, RESEARCH IS STILL BEING DONE. UM, IF WE, IF THIS SHOULD MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, I WOULD, UH, ENCOURAGE TO INCLUDE, UH, THE RESULTS OF THAT STUDY AND IF THEY PROVE, UH, BENEFICIAL, THEN THE POLL WOULD BE MOVED. I, UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I HAVE A QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT. ARE Y'ALL EXPLORING A PARTICULAR DIRECTION FOR THE 20 FOOT MOVE? IS THAT GONNA BE SOUTH OR NORTH? ASSUME SOUTH, CORRECT? YEAH, IT WOULD BE SOUTH, YEAH. SO, UM, YEAH, THE SOUTH DIRECTION, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN TAKE A STAB AT A MOTION HERE. THANK YOU. UM, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE, [03:40:01] UM, RELOCATED POLE 20 FEET, UH, TO THE SOUTH. UH, THAT'LL BE CONDITIONED ON, UM, ACCEPTANCE BY C P S OF THE LIGHTING STUDY. IF C P S REJECTS, UH, THE LOCATION BASED ON THE LIGHTING STUDY, UH, THEN THE, THE CURRENT, UH, LOCATION, UH, WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE AND I MIGHT ASK THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IF THAT MOTION IS ENFORCEABLE. I'M NOT THE ATTORNEY, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE CAN. OKAY, WELL THEN THE MOTION . I'LL SECOND SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, MAY HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ. AYE FISH? AYE. GIBBS AYE. QUEZ AYE. AREOLA AYE. GROUP, WE LOSE GROUP. AYE, SIR, SHE'S FEDOR. AYE. MOTION CARRIES 42. [42. 21-1926 Address/Description: 955 S ALAMO ST/ROW near 955 S ALAMO ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-196 Applicant: Kevin Bowyer/Modus LLC Request: Installation of a new network wood pole City Council Dist.: 1] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 42, CASE NUMBER 20 21 96. AT THE RIGHT OF WAY NEAR 9 65 SOUTH ALAMO, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL A NEW WOOD POLE TO FEATURE NETWORK NODE EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING TRENCHING FOR ELECTRICAL POWER. STAFF. DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE NEW NETWORK POLL BASED ON FINDING D THROUGH H. WHILE APPROVAL MAY STILL BE ISSUED AT THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION, THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MET. FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY NETWORK NODE DESIGN MANUAL CO-LOCATION SEPARATION DIAMETER AND DESIGN WORK WITHIN PUBLIC PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO TEXAS ANTIQUITIES CODE AND APPROVAL FROM THE H D R C DOES NOT OMIT OR SUPERSEDE ANY ADDITIONAL APPROVALS REQUIRED BY C P SS OR RELATED PERMITTING CITY DEPARTMENTS. AND I HAVE THE RENDERING ON THE SCREEN. KEVIN, GO AHEAD. SO YEAH, UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS TWO, UH, THESE NEXT TWO ARE FOR BRAND NEW, UH, STANDALONE VERIZON OWNED, UH, CELL SITES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ON, UH, 30 FOOT TALL WOODEN POLES. UM, SO JUST BRIEFLY GOING INTO TO KIND OF SITE SELECTION. SO WHEN WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO, UH, PICK SITE THAT, UH, KIND OF MEETS VERIZON'S COVERED OBJECTIVE, WE TAKE A LOT OF THINGS INTO ACCOUNT TOPOGRAPHY, THE, THE BUILDING, THE ELEVATION, UM, THE, THE POLE IN THE AREA AND WHAT THOSE POLE OWNERS ALLOW FOR US TO DO AND DON'T ALLOW US TO DO. SO IN THIS, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, UH, WE VETTED OUT, UH, THE RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERS SEARCH RING COULD NOT FIND, UH, AN EXISTING POLE OUT THERE THAT WAS FEASIBLE FOR US TO CO-LOCATE ON, UH, MAJORITY OF THE SITES IN THIS AREA WHERE C P SS WOULD OWN THE ASSETS. UM, AND C P S HAS PRETTY STRICT GUIDELINES AND ON THE TYPES OF POLES THAT WE CAN CO-LOCATE ON. SO THE MAJORITY OF THESE HAD EITHER GUY WIRES OR TRANSFORMERS ON THEM, OR WERE TRANSMISSION LINES THAT, UH, WE CANNOT CO-LOCATE ON. SO REALLY THE ONLY OPTION WITHIN THE RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERS SEARCHING HERE WOULD BE TO INSTALL A BRAND NEW POLE. AND WE THOUGHT THIS LOCATION WAS BEST, UM, BECAUSE IT WAS KIND OF ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, UM, KIND OF A LITTLE OFF THAT MAIN MAIN ROAD THERE. UM, AND IT, IT ALSO WOULD, UH, BE A WOODEN POLE, LIKE ALL THE OTHER POLES IN THE AREA AND HAVE ALL THE EQUIPMENT BE, UM, PAINTED TO MATCH THE, UM, THE WOOD POLE. SO I GUESS JUST QUICKLY RUNNING THROUGH, UM, OUR RESPONSES TO, TO STAFF'S FINDINGS. I MEAN THE CO-LOCATION I, I TOUCHED ON, UH, THE SEPARATION. UH, THE PROPOSED POLES NOT SEPARATED FROM THE EXISTING POLES MORE THAN 200 FEET. UM, WE'RE AWARE THAT IT'S UNDER O H PS AND HRCS DISCRETION TO NOT ALLOW NEW NETWORK BOAT POLES WITHIN 200 FEET. UM, BUT IN THE PAST WE'VE KIND OF DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND SHOWN THAT IT REALLY WAS THE ONLY OPTION AND WE HAVE HAVE GOTTEN APPROVAL, UM, OF NETWORK NODES WITHIN 250 FEET OF AN EXISTING ASSET IN THE PAST, AND THEN THE RESPONSE TO THE DIAMETER. UM, SO THE, THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO INSTALL A POLE THAT'S AND MEET, UH, THE, THE STANDARDS OF EIGHT INCHES OR LESS. UH, IT WOULD NOT BE STRUCTURALLY SOUND. UM, [03:45:01] SO WE HAVE TO, TO GO WITH A SLIGHTLY LARGER DIAMETER OF 11 AND A HALF INCHES, UM, FOR THAT WOODEN POLE THAT WE'D BE INSTALLING. AND ALL THE OTHER C P S WOODEN POLES IN THAT VICINITY ARE, UH, 15 AND A HALF INCHES OR GREATER, UM, IN DIAMETER. SO WE, WE WOULD ACTUALLY BE A SMALLER DIAMETER THAN ALL THE OTHER POLES THAT ARE, ARE IN THE VICINITY. AND THEN, UM, LASTLY IN RESPONSE TO DESIGN, UM, MATCHING WOOD MATERIAL TO EXISTING POLES DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APEL AESTHETIC. UM, BUT WE ARE PROPOSING YEAH, TO, TO MATCH THE COLOR AND WE THINK IT, IT DOES IN, IN ALL THE INSTANCES OF, OF EXISTING INSTALLATIONS THAT WE HAVE OUT THERE. UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S KINDA ALL I HAVE. I'M OPEN TO HEARING, UH, COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION. UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. HAVE YOU EXPLORED, UH, USING A SMALL CELL MONOPOLE INSTEAD OF THIS ONE THAT SHOWS THREE ANTENNAS? UM, I THINK A SMALL CELL, UM, MONOPOLE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT LESS, UM, WILL BE A LITTLE BIT MORE STEALTH AND, UH, KIND OF BLEND MORE THAN THIS ONE. HAVE YOU EXPLORED THAT, UH, WITH, UH, YOUR CLIENT? SO, UM, I GUESS STEALTH MONOPOLE, UM, UM, NOT, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE WHAT WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT. UM, I MEAN, UH, A SMALL, UM, A SMALL CELL MONOPOLE, SO IT'S LIKE A, IT'S A BIGGER POLE WHERE THE, WHERE THE EQUIPMENT IS ALL HOUSED WITHIN THE POLE, RIGHT? LIKE IT'S IT'S HOLLOW BASED, CORRECT. YEAH. RIGHT. CORRECT. RIGHT. AND, AND IN THAT KIND OF DESIGN, WE WOULD NEED A MUCH, MUCH WIDER THAN DIAMETER POLE. UM, UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING IN FRONT OF THE FIVE G ANTENNAS, BUT WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT PROBABLY DOUBLE OR ALMOST TRIPLE THE SIZE IN DIAMETER AND IT WOULD BE A, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A STEEL TYPE STRUCTURE AND WE DON'T THINK THAT WOULD FIT IN WITH THE AESTHETIC OF THE AREA, WHICH IS ALL WOODEN UTILITY POLES. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, I'M, I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THIS LO LOCATION FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS, BUT I DO WANNA ASK YOU A QUESTION, UH, ABOUT HOW, HOW FAR OFF THIS CORNER THERE, IF, IF, UH, IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK DOWN BEAU REGARD THERE, THE, THERE'S AN EXISTING POLE THAT WE CAN SEE THE STOP THE TOP OF THE POLE RIGHT BEHIND IN YOUR ILLUSTRATION THAT'S STICKING UP THROUGH THE TREES. I BELIEVE THAT POLE HAS A TRANSFORMER ON IT, WHICH IS WHY THAT'S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CO-LOCATION. IS THAT CORRECT? MM-HMM. , THAT IS CORRECT, YES. THE NEXT POLE DOWN, WHICH IS ABOUT 15, 20 FEET FURTHER HAS NO, UH, TRANSFORMER ON IT. AND IT HAS ONE, IT HAS ONE GUY WIRE, BUT I KNOW, I KNOW THAT WHEN YOU'VE WORKED, WHEN MAYBE IT'S NOT YOUR GROUP, BUT WHEN GROUPS HAVE WORKED WITH C P S, THEY'VE FOUND SOME FLEXIBILITY ON A POLE WITH A GUY WIRE. THERE'S NO TRANSFORMER ON THE NEXT ONE, AND THAT'S ABOUT 50 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION. THE, THE ISSUE WE HAVE OVER HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE PARTICULARLY ON GO BO REGARD, MOST OF THE STABS ARE GONNA BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET AND THE STABS ARE PRETTY FREQUENT. RIGHT. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF POLES COMING IN, PARTICULARLY AT THIS INTERSECTION. AND I JUST, I, I JUST CAN'T SEE A REASONABLE OPTION THAT ISN'T ONE THAT'S USING CO-LOCATION RIGHT HERE. THAT'S JUST MY, MY THOUGHTS. SO, UH, STAFF, CAN YOU TURN THE CAMERA AROUND, POINT TO THE POLE SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE POLE THAT I'M ASKING ABOUT? UH, YES. THIS IS A STILL IMAGE, BUT I CAN PULL UP THE STREET VIEW. OH. OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS A LIVE VIEW. THERE'S A, THERE'S A, A POLE RIGHT BEHIND THAT ONE WITH, WITH A GUY WIRE AND NO TRANSFORMER. I UNDERSTAND THE GUY WIRE IS ON THE CHECKLIST, BUT I KNOW THAT THAT C P S HAS, HAS LOOKED AT THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY. IF YOU GO, YEAH, YOU CAN TURN BACK AROUND AND LOOK UP AT IT. NOT, NOT THAT ONE, BUT THAT ONE ALSO COULD BE ELIGIBLE. THERE'S ONE RIGHT THERE IN THE TREE THAT'S CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION. HAVE YOU TO, IS A QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT DIRECTLY, HAVE YOU EXPLORED THESE TWO POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR COLO, FOR LOCATION? I'M HAVING A DELAY IN THE, THE VIDEO FEED, BUT I'M PULLING UP THE, THE STREET VIEW MYSELF. MAYBE SECOND. SO THAT FIRST PULL DOWN YEAH, HAS A TRANSFORMER AND THEN THE ONE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE TREE, THAT'S THE BUDDING THE RESIDENCE, THAT'S ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT ONE HAS [03:50:01] A GUY WIRE AND THEN THE ONE NEXT TO THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING ON IT, WHICH IT, IT, WE'RE MOVING KIND OF NORTH ALONG BO REGARD BECAUSE THAT INTERSECTION ALREADY HAS STABS. YEAH, I MEAN THE MAIN COVERAGE OBJECTIVE HERE IS, UH, TO MAIN AVENUE ALAMO WITH, WITH ALL OF THE, THE RESTAURANTS AND, AND EVERYTHING. SO WITH THE TREES THERE AND, AND, AND THE BUILDINGS ON THE CORNER AND ALONG ALAMO, I DON'T THINK IT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THE, THE COVERAGE OBJECTIVE THAT THE RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERS NEEDS. YOU NEED TO BE CLOSER TO THE, TO THE INTERSECTION TO BE ABLE TO KIND OF SHOOT DOWN THOSE, UM, THE STREET. AND AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, THE, THE MAJOR, UM, COVERAGE OBJECTIVE, IS THAT ALAMO STREET RIGHT THERE, MR. CHAIRMAN? I'M NOT, I'M NOT. DID WE GET ANY COMMENTS FROM THE KING WILLIAM NEIGHBORHOOD? I BELIEVE ALL WE HAD WAS FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY, CORRECT? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, IF MM-HMM. , IF, IF WITH WITHOUT THIS, I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS, UM, A, UM, UM, I MEAN WITHOUT THIS ARE THERE ARE, THERE IS, IS THERE A, A, UM, A DEFICIENCY IN THE PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO INFORMATION OR TO, UH, TO CELLULAR, UM, CONNECTION? I MEAN, I MEAN, I MEAN, LET'S SAY, SAY YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PROPOSING IT BECAUSE IT'S NECESSARY OR BECAUSE IT MAXIMIZES YOUR, YOUR PROFIT MARGIN. I VERIZON BELIEVES THAT IT'S NECESSARY. I MEAN, WITH, WITH THE EVOLUTION OF TECHNOLOGY, UM, JUST TRYING TO BRING FIVE, FIVE G THE NEW, THE NETWORK TO THE CUSTOMERS AND ALL THESE SITES ARE REPLACED TO ENHANCE THAT COVERAGE AND, AND BRING THAT FIVE G, WHICH IS THE FUTURE END. I MEAN, IT IS CURRENT, BUT VERIZON'S TRYING TO BRING FIVE TO YOU MADE FIVE G MARKET, YOU MADE A COMMENT WITH RESPECT TO, UM, THE, UM, THE PARTNERSHIP. THERE'S A MULTI, UH, PROVIDER, UH, RELATIONSHIP IN THIS, UM, IN, IN, IN SATISFYING THIS TECHNOLOGICAL NEED OR IS IT JUST VERIZON? THIS, THIS IS SOLELY VERIZON. WHEN I MENTIONED EARLIER WAS WE'RE WHAT, WHEN I WAS DISCUSSING THE C P S STREET LINE DESIGN EARLIER, WE WERE WORKING WITH OTHER CARRIERS TO COME UP WITH A STREAMLINE ONE DESIGN FOR THE, THE C P S STREETLIGHTS. BUT THIS IS STANDALONE, UH, VERIZON SITE. OKAY. NOW LET ME ASK YOU ONE MORE QUESTION THAT I MEAN, AND I MEAN, I I DON'T THINK YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO ANSWER IT, BUT, BUT IF, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VERIZON, ARE WE POTENTIALLY ALSO TALKING ABOUT T-MOBILE ASKING FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS? OR WHOEVER ELSE IS OUT THERE ASKING FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS? YEAH, I MEAN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE DIFFERENT NETWORKS, SO, UH, WHATEVER THEIR NEED IS, THEY, THEY MIGHT BE PROPOSING A SITE A FEW BLOCKS AWAY. UM, BUT THIS IS VERIZON'S ITS OWN NETWORK, SO IT WOULD BE ITS OWN A POLE AND, UM, YEAH, IT WOULD, IT WOULD JUST BE BE VERIZON'S. BUT YEAH, THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR OTHER CARRIERS TO, TO PUT SITES, UH, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. I JUST, I ASK YOU IS TRY TO VISUALIZE WHAT WHAT THIS IMPACT IS, IS IF IF THIS IMPACT IS ACTUALLY SATISFYING THE GENERAL NEED OR IS THIS IMPACT ONLY SATISFYING ONE ASPECT? AND THEN WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THEN, THEN, THEN YOUR, YOUR, YOU KNOW, IF YOU COULD JUST, YOU JUST KIND OF BEAR WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT THE IMPACT OF YOUR VISUAL IMPLICATES MULTIPLE IMPACTS OVER TIME AND THEN THERE'S A SITUATION, RIGHT? SO, UH, BUT I, I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK AND, AND YOUR CONSIDERATION , I THINK YOU HAVE IT RIGHT? UM, BECAUSE STAFF HAD SO MANY, I MEAN, IT IS, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE GUIDELINES FOR LOCATION, FOR THESE NO NODE. I MEAN, WHAT, VERIZON IS NOT GONNA BE THE FIRST ONE. WE'RE GONNA HAVE SEEN MANY OF THESE COMPANIES COME IN AND ASKING FOR THIS. SO I DO FEEL LIKE, UM, I MEAN EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT DID A GOOD CASE PRESENTING THE FIVE OR FOUR ITEMS THAT STAFF FELT THAT IT WASN'T, UH, COMPLYING WITH, I THINK WE HAVE TO STAND BY THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THE FUTURE WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, START SEEING MORE POLLS LIKE THAT, ESPECIALLY IN A, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH HOW HOUSING LIKE POST TO HOMES AND, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER THAT I DO GO, I, I'M SORRY, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, I DO KNOW THAT IN SOME CASES, UH, WHERE THERE'S LIMITED SPACE AND AVAILABILITY, OTHER CARRIERS WILL MOUNT TO OTHER, LET'S SAY AN AT AND T CAN MOUNT INTO A VERIZON POLE JUST BECAUSE OF, UH, [03:55:01] LIMITED AVAILABILITY OF, OF LOCATIONS. UM, BUT I, I I, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, UH, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ AND, AND RUB AND, AND I AGREE, BUT, UM, I AM READY TO MAKE A MOTION. UH, BUT I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER VELASQUE, UH, SAYING SOMETHING, SO I'LL, I'LL WAIT. I, I JUST WANTED TO, TO TO SEE IF THE, IF THE APPLICANT WASN'T WILLING TO, UH, REMOVE THE REQUEST AND, AND THEN GO OUT AND RE-LOOK WITH THAT ONE THING IN MIND THAT, THAT I, I, I WOULD IMAGINE OUR CONSENSUS OPINION IS, IS THAT THERE'S GOTTA BE A SOLUTION THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE PRECEDENT THAT IS SET. AND IF YOU'RE ABLE TO LOOK FOR AN AESTHETIC TO GO OUT THERE AND NOT WASTE THIS APPLICATION OPPORTUNITY, THEN YOU WOULD ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE OR, OR DO SOMETHING THAT WOULD TAKE IT OUT OF OUR HANDS. SO YOU COULD GO BACK AND SEE IF THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE. I THANK YOU. IN REGARDS TO THAT, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER, UM, ACROSS ALAMO STREET FROM THIS INTERSECTION. THERE IS A, UH, ELECTRIC POLE, BUT BEHIND IT IS A STEEL POLE THAT, UH, PROBABLY IS THERE FOR A STRUCTURAL REASON. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF CORRECT STAFF CAN PULL UP THE STREET VIEW, UH, WHETHER THAT STEEL POLE COULD BE LOOKED AT AS A CO-LOCATION OPPORTUNITY, UH, THAT WOULD SUPPORT, UH, YEAH, THAT THERE'S A STEEL POLE THERE RIGHT BEHIND THERE, UM, AS A CO-LOCATION OPPORTUNITY FOR NOT JUST VERIZON, BUT FOR, UM, UH, ADDITIONAL CARRIERS IN THE FUTURE. IF I CAN CHIME IN ON, ON THAT POLE I'M LOOKING AT ON MY STREET VIEW, UH, YEAH, THAT STEEL POLE IS THERE C P S ZONE AND IT'S THERE TO GUIDE, UH, NOT ONLY THAT POLE THAT'S A BUDDING, BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE ATTACHING TO THE NEXT ONE DOWN. AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO, TO UTILIZE CPSS STEEL POLES. AND EVEN IF IT WAS A WOODEN GUY POLE, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, UNFORTUNATELY. OKAY, THANK YOU. MM-HMM. , IF I MAY, I, I, I ALSO COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ, YOU WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION? YES, UH, I MOTION TO DENY, UM, MOTION TO DENY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER GU, I'LL SEC. I MAY HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ. AYE FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELAZQUEZ? AYE. OLA AYE. AYE GROUP. AYE. BETSON AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. [43. 21-1927 Address/Description: 1430 E HOUSTON ST/ROW near 1430 E HOUSTON ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-195 Applicant: Kevin Bowyer/Modus LLC Request: Installation of a new network wood pole City Council Dist.: 2] 43 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 43, CASE NUMBER 20 21 95 AT THE RIGHT OF WAY NEAR 1430 EAST HOUSTON, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL A NEW WOOD POLE FEATURING NETWORK NOTE EQUIPMENT AT THE RIGHT OF WAY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 800 BLOCK OF EAST CROCKETT BETWEEN CROSS STREETS, NORTH MESQUITE, AND EAST TO THE EAST AND NORTH CHERRY TO THE WEST, CLOSEST TO 14TH 30. EAST HOUSTON STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE NEW NETWORK NODE POLL BASED ON FINDING B THROUGH H. WHILE APPROVAL MAY STILL BE ISSUED AT THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION, THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MET PER THE RIGHT OF WAY. NETWORK NODE DESIGN MANUAL CO-LOCATION SEPARATION DIAMETER DESIGN WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO TEXAS ANTIQUITIES CODE AND APPROVAL FROM THE H G R C DOES NOT OMIT OR SUPERSEDE ANY ADDITIONAL PERMISSIONS REQUIRED BY C P S OR RELATED, UH, PERMITTING CITY DEPARTMENT. I HAVE THE RENDERING ON THE SCREEN THAT KEVIN, IF YOU WANNA GO. HEY, THERE AGAIN. UM, SO IT'S SIMILAR SITUATION, UH, THAT WE'RE IN IS THE LAST, THAT LAST SITE, UM, WE VETTED OUT ALL OF THE EXISTING ASSETS, VERTICAL ASSETS IN THE, IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, UM, ALL OF WHICH ARE, UM, C P S WOOD POLES. YOU'LL SEE SOME STREET LIGHTS IN THE BACKGROUND, BUT THE PEARL PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNED. UM, SO REALLY, UM, OUR ONLY OPTION HERE, UH, WAS TO PROPOSE A A A WOULDN'T, UH, CLINICAL PULL STAB NEW, NEW VERTICAL, UH, VERIZON NODE PULL. UM, DUE TO NONE OF THE EXISTING VERTICAL ASSETS BEING, UM, VIABLE TO ATTACH TO, UM, SIMILAR TO THE LAST SEPARATION, WE IN THE PAST, WE'VE KIND OF SHOWN THAT, UH, WE COULDN'T GO WITH IT OUTSIDE OF THE 250 FROM AN EXISTING [04:00:01] VERTICAL ASSET. UM, AND THAT THE COMMISSION HAD HAS APPROVED, UM, PROBABLY A HALF DOZEN TO A DOZEN BY NOW. UM, SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHERE WE CONVEYED THAT THERE WASN'T ANY OTHER OPTIONS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO, UM, KIND OF A RESPONSE TO THE, THE SEPARATION, THE DIAMETERS, SAME THING AS THE LAST ONE. UH, IT'S NOT STRUCTURALLY SOUND FOR THE TO GO EIGHT INCHES OR LESS WILL BE AT 11 AND A HALF INCHES DIAMETER, UH, WHILE ALL THE OTHER POLES ARE 15 AND A HALF INCHES OR, OR BIGGER. AND THE DESIGN WE BELIEVE PRESENT BELIEVES THAT, UM, TO MATCH THE EQUIPMENT TO THE POLE IS ITSELF AND IT DOES HELP HIDE THE EQUIPMENT A LITTLE BIT. UM, AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S , UM, HAVE TO ANSWER. UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? YES, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. IF WE GO TO, UM, SLIDE NUMBER NINE, AND IT MAY BE A LITTLE LAG ON, ON YOUR PART, UH, MR. UH, BAUER LAWYER, UM, THERE IS AN EXISTING LIGHT POLE IN THE PRIVATE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO WHERE YOU'RE PROPOSING YOUR POLE. HAVE YOU EXPLORED, UH, WORKING WITH THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO, UM, LOCATE YOUR LIGHT POLE, YOUR POLE THERE, AND ATTACHING A LIGHT FOR HIS PURPOSE? UH, WE HAVE NOT PURSUED, UM, ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY, UM, OPTIONS IN THIS AREA. UM, HORIZONS BELIEF THAT THERE'S THE STATE CODE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO, TO INSTALL ON THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY THE, THE FIRST PUSH IS TO, UM, TO GO FIRST SITE. THAT ISN'T THE RIGHT OF WAY. BUT, UH, THERE'S, THERE IS ALWAYS THE OPTION THAT WE GO TO THE LANDLORD AND THEY SAY, UH, NO. SO THEN WE'RE KIND OF STUCK IN THE SAME BOOK. SO REALLY THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY IS EXISTING VERTICAL ASSETS. AND IF WE VET THAT, THEN UH, WE PROPOSE, UH, NEW POLL STABS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTION IS, UH, BACK TO SLIDE NUMBER NINE, IN THE CENTER PHOTO, THERE'S A LARGE CELL TOWER. IS THAT NOT AN ASSET THAT YOU COULD, UH, UTILIZE? UH, THAT'S VERY FAR AWAY FROM, UH, KIND OF THE COVERAGE OBJECTIVE? THESE, THESE SMALL CELL SITES GENERALLY ONLY, UH, TRANSMIT, UH, 500 TO A THOUSAND FEET BASED ON WHAT'S OUT THERE. AND WE NEED TO BE, UH, LOWER TO THE GROUND, LIKE 20 OR 25 TO, TO 35 FEET, UH, FOR THIS TECHNOLOGY TO, TO ACTUALLY WORK SO THAT THAT POLE WOULD BE TOO TALL AND TOO FAR AWAY FOR, FOR WHAT THIS KIND OF TECHNOLOGY CALLS FOR, UNFORTUNATELY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THIS IS QUESTIONS. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, COULD COULD WE GO, UH, PREVIOUSLY, PREVIOUSLY THERE HAVE BEEN, UH, WHEN THERE'S A NEW STAB AND A NEW ASSET YOU, YOU ALL HAVE OFFERED, UM, HAVING, HAVING THAT PROVIDE AN AMENITY TO THE STREETSCAPE IN THE TERMS OF, UH, A STREETLIGHT BEING ADDED. I'M NOTICING IN THIS LOCATION WE HAVE, UH, A PRETTY CONSISTENT SET OF STABS ALONG CHERRY AND THEN ALONG CROCKETT, THE STABS ARE KIND OF BOUNCING BACK AND FORTH, BUT ON THE CORNER OF CHERRY AND UH, CROCKETT, THERE REALLY ISN'T A PILE UP HAPPENING ON THAT CORNER. SO GEN I KIND OF FEEL LIKE THE LOCATION COULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR A NEW STAB, BUT IT ALSO WOULD BE APPROPRIATE POTENTIALLY FOR A STREETLIGHT. UH, IS THAT SOMETHING? YEAH, AND THAT CONSIDER WITH THESE, YEAH. SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF. YEAH, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING. UM, WE, WE CAN DO, WE'VE, UH, DONE IT IN THE PAST ACTUALLY, UH, I THINK A FEW MONTHS BACK MAYBE, UM, YOU GUYS COMMISSION THAT AS PART OF THE APPROVAL, UH, TO ADD A STREETLIGHT TO PULL SO THAT, THAT, YES, THAT IS SOMETHING WE'RE WILLING OR VERIZON IS WILLING TO DO. AND IF STAFF COULD PAN DOWN INTO THE LEFT JUST A LITTLE BIT, I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS LOCATION RELATIVE TO THE EXISTING SIDEWALK. UM, DO YOU KNOW ABOUT HOW, HOW FAR IN THE RIGHT OF WAY HOW FAR OFF THE SIDEWALK IT'S GOING TO BE? OR IS THIS GOING TO ENCUMBER THE SIDEWALK IN WAY RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE? IS THAT, THAT'S WHAT THE ILLUSTRATION IS SHOWING? [04:05:01] YEAH, IT'S GONNA BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT GRASSY AREA AND THAT IS, THAT IS, UH, PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. WE HAD A SURVEY DONE, HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE SIDEWALK. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MEAN, I CAN ATTEMPT A MOTION IF YOU THINK WE'RE READY. UH, YES, PLEASE. UM, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THIS LOCATION, UM, ON THE CONDITION THAT, UH, STREETLIGHT BE ADDED, UH, SUCH THAT, THAT IS PERMISSIBLE IF ANOTHER, UH, IF C P SS OR CITY OFFICIAL DOES NOT WANT A STREETLIGHT THERE, UH, IT WOULD NOT NEED TO INCLUDE A STREETLIGHT. I CERTAINLY DON'T WANNA CROSS OVER WHERE WE SHOULDN'T. BUT IT'S NICE WHEN THESE ASSETS, WHEN WHEN NEW VERTICAL STABS CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMUNITY IN A WAY THAT INCREASES SECURITY. SO THAT'S THE END OF MY MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND YOU HAVE A MOTION? A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? UH, MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? ANDAS? AYE FISH? AYE. GIBBS AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. AREOLA, AREOLA SHE COULD LOSE YOU GROUP. AYE THAT SIR? AYE, MOTION CARRIES. SO THAT WAS SIX. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM STILL. UM, SO QUICK NOTE. ITEM 44 4 30 EAST HILDEBRAND, UM, WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT DURING THIS HEARING, SO WE CAN SKIP THAT ONE. WE'RE ON TO 45 NOW. UH, JUST A QUESTION, UH, OR A COMMENT. UH, WE'VE GOT FIVE MORE CASES TO HEAR, THREE OF THEM BEING OFF OF A CONSENT AND MAY TAKE SOME TIME. UH, WE'RE GONNA LOSE A QUORUM AT SEVEN 30. SO, UH, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU CONTACT THE APPLICANT'S AT THE, AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS LIST AND WE'LL TRY TO GET THROUGH AT LEAST THE UH, UH, 45 AND 46 OKAY STEPS. THANK YOU. AGENDA [45. 21-1929 Address/Description: 418 MISSION ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-052 Historic District Name: King William Applicant: Deniese Crittenden Request: Front yard fence installation City Council Dist.: 1] ITEM NUMBER 45 H D R C CASE NUMBER 2020 DASH 0 5 2 4 18 MISSION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL A THREE FOOT HIGH WROUGHT IRON FRONT YARD FENCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE INSTALLATION BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH C WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS AN UPDATED SITE PLAN TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL SHOWING THAT THE DRIVEWAY GATE IS LOCATED BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE WALL PLANE, AND TWO, THAT THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION HEIGHT OF THE APPROVED GATE AND FENCING MAY NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FOUR FEET AS APPROVED BY THE H C R C AT ANY PORTION OF THE FENCE. AND THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO CONTEST STIPULATION NUMBER ONE AND INSTALL THE DRIVEWAY GATE AT THE FRONT OF THE DRIVEWAY AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SIDEWALK. AND WE DO HAVE THE, UM, APPLICANT BOB ON THE PHONE. BOB, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THE COMMISSIONERS? HI COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME'S BOB CRIDEN AND YOU PROBABLY RECOGNIZE THIS HOUSE 'CAUSE I'VE MET WITH SOME OF YOU AT THAT LOCATION BEFORE WITH MY WIFE DENISE, WHO'S ALSO ON. AND SO, UH, WE'VE, WE, WE'VE SEEN YOU BEFORE ON WIND WINDOWS. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND, AND TOOK THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BOARD. UH, IN THIS CASE. UH, I THINK IT'S, WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO, UH, DEFER TO THE KING WILLIAM ARCHITECT ARCHITECTURE BOARD AND, AND, UH, THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, SO WE HAVE A LETTER FROM THE, UH, KING WILLIAM. YEAH, ACTUALLY, UM, LISA, LISA LIN HAD CALLED, UM, TO BE CALLED SO SHE COULD READ THE LETTER. SHE'S NO LONGER AVAILABLE. AND SO THE LETTER IS IN YOUR FOLDER FOR REFERENCE. OKAY. AS I RECALL, THEY RECOMMEND THAT THE GATE BE OUT AT THE SIDEWALK. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UH, WHENEVER WE, WHENEVER WE HAVE, UH, AN ISSUE WHERE, WHERE THE, THE GATE SHOULD, SHOULD TURN BACK AND KIND OF HIT THE OPEN CORNER OF A COURT, UH, PORCH, WE KIND OF HAVE THIS ISSUE. SO I AGREE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S ASSESSMENT THAT THE GATE SHOULD BE AT THE SIDEWALK. I I CANNOT PULL UP THAT LETTER CORY, FOR SOME REASON RIGHT NOW. UH, BUT I BELIEVE, WELL, I GUESS IT GOES WITH STAFF STIPULATION, WHICH IS THE SAME THING. DOES THE LETTER SUPPORT THE LOCATION OF THE GATE AS PROPOSED OR AS PER STAFF STIPULATION? THE [04:10:01] LETTER PROPOSES THE GATE AS PROPOSED A AS PROPOSED AS IT SUPPORTS IT PROPOSED AT THE SIDEWALK. AT THE SIDEWALK, CORRECT. GOOD, GOOD TIME TO MAKE A MOTION. YEAH. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. I READ THE LETTER IN THE, UM, KING WILLIAM ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THE GATE AT THE SIDEWALK AS AS PROPOSED AND ACTUALLY THE TWO AJA TWO PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY. HAVE THE GATES AT THE, UH, SIDEWALK. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. UH, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATION TWO REGARDING THE LIMITATION OF FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION. A SECOND. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? I HAVE TOO MANY WINDOWS OPEN FERNANDEZ. AYE FISH? AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELAZQUEZ AYE. OLA HAS LEFT GROUP. AYE. ER AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. I THINK WE JUST GOT THE APPLICANT [46. 21-1930 Address/Description: 2211 N ST MARYS ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-047 Historic District Name: Tobin Hill Applicant:Jason Balderas/S.A.C.S Request: Front yard fence installation, front porch screen installation, exterior modifications City Council Dist.: 1] 4 46 ON THE LINE. IS THAT RIGHT? THANKS. THANKS EVERYBODY. THANKS. GO AHEAD. WE, YES. ITEM NUMBER ONE SEC. I HAVE TO, UM, MERGE MY CALLER AGAIN. YES, I'M MER. HELLO. I'M MERGING US NOW. CAN YOU HEAR ME? UH, YES SIR. YES. CAN THE COMMISSION HEAR ME? YES. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 46, CASE NUMBER 20 21 0 4 7 AT 2211 NORTH ST. MARY'S, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, INSTALL A FRONT YARD FENCE FEATURING ROD IRON DESIGN FIVE FEET IN HEIGHT AND A SLIDING VEHICLE GATE, AND TWO, ENCLOS THE FRONT PORCH BY REMOVING THE WOOD RAILING AND INSTALLING ROT IRON METAL SCREENS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE FENCING AS PROPOSED BASED ON FINDING C STAFF. DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO PORCH ENCLOSURE, BASED ON FINDING D THE PORCH RAILING SHOULD BE RESTORED AND THE SCREEN SHOULD BE REMOVED. SO, UM, JUST TO WRAP UP THIS CASE FOR THE COMMISSION, THIS COMES TO US AS A VIOLATION CASE WHERE DEFENSE POSTS, UH, BEGAN INSTALLATION. HOWEVER, UPON REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED DESIGN, IT IS ELIGIBLE, UM, FOR APPROVAL EVEN WITH A FIVE FEET IN HEIGHT BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND ADJACENT BETWEEN TWO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THE FRONT GATE. HOWEVER, THE OUTSTANDING ITEM AT THIS TIME IS THE REMOVAL OF THE FRONT PORCH RAILING AND INSTALLATION OF FULLY METAL, METAL MESH SCREENS. UH, GISELLE, THE, UH, HOMEOWNER IS ON THE LINE. GISELLE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO, UH, SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE PORCH ENCLOSURE? YES, I WOULD. HI, UH, MY NAME IS GISELLE GONZALEZ. MY MOTHER IS YOLANDA B GARZA. UM, SHE HAS THE PROPERTY IS IN HER NAME. AND MY AUNT LES LOBO'S NAME, UH, NEXT DOOR AT 2209. THAT WAS MY GREAT-GRANDFATHER'S ALAMO ENGRAVING SHOP. HE BOUGHT THESE PROPERTIES HERE, 2211 AND 2209, AND THE 1930. OKAY. UH, MY MOTHER IS 89 YEARS OLD AND HAS, UH, PHYSICAL, UH, DISABILITIES, A HORRIBLE BACK. AND ALSO, UH, SHE'S, UH, WELL HER AGE, YOU KNOW, HER MEMORY IS NOT THAT GREAT. HER SISTER IS 86. I WILL BE 66 MARCH 22ND. AND, UH, I, UH, HAVE, UH, A PRETTY BAD DISABILITY IN THAT, UH, I HAD TO HAVE AN AMPUTATION ABOVE THE KNEE. SO, SO WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT SECURITY AND, UH, PRIVACY. UH, WE DON'T AMBULATE REAL WELL, CAN'T MOVE AROUND REAL QUICK. SO, UH, THE MAIN THING, I WAS TRYING TO MAKE AN AREA BECAUSE IT'S LIKE A LITTLE BARBIE AND DOLLHOUSE. I WAS TRYING TO HAVE THE FRONT PORCH TO WHERE MY MOTHER COULD ENJOY A NICE BREEZE ON GOOD DAYS OR, OR WHATEVER, IF I WANTED TO MAKE HER SOMETHING AND SHE COULD ENJOY IT. UH, THE REASON FOR THAT MESH WIRING IS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANNA GET CHEWED UP [04:15:01] BY INSECTS. AND, UH, THERE'S REALLY NOT A WHOLE LOT THAT WE CAN DO. WE'RE PRETTY DISABLED. SO, UH, I'M SORRY. YOU KNOW, FOR THE INFRACTION, IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. I THOUGHT I HAD EVERY CAUSE AND REASON TO DO IT. UH, IT WAS DONE THE WAY IT WAS DONE FOR SECURITY AND, UH, FOR PROTECTION AGAINST, UH, ANIMALS COMING IN, BIRDS FLYING. UH, AND, UH, BUT THERE WAS SOME STATEMENT MADE ABOUT, UH, NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE THE WINDOWS IN THE DOOR. WELL, YOU CAN SEE THE WINDOWS IN THE DOOR DOOR. IT'S, UH, I COULD PUT A PICTURE OUT ON THE FENCE, BUT THE THING IS, WE, WE NEED THIS. IT'S NOT, UH, JUST BECAUSE WE LOVE IRON WORK. UH, OVER THE YEARS, THESE HOUSES WERE VANDALIZED MANY TIMES. UH, AND SO FOR THAT REASON, WE NEED THE WROUGHT IRON. AND I HAVE A PUPPY THAT'S ABOUT A YEAR OLD, UH, BELGIAN SHEPHERD BLACK, UH, THAT, THAT, UH, FENCE NEEDS TO BE HIGH ENOUGH TO, SO SHE WON'T BE TRYING TO JUMP IT. UH, AND, UH, IT'S JUST FOR SECURITY. WE, WE, WE HAVE GOTTEN ALL THIS STUFF. IT'S BECAUSE OF THROUGH THE YEARS, UH, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF VIOLATIONS AGAINST OUR PROPERTY. AND, UH, WE JUST NEED TO FEEL SECURE. WE ARE HANDICAPPED AND, UH, WE DON'T WANT ANYONE INTRUDING IN ON IT. UH, I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD EXPLAIN IT ANY BETTER, BUT THE MAIN THING IS, UH, I, I JUST DON'T SEE, WE HAVE A, A BRAND NEW BUILDING NEXT TO US THAT IS IN NO WAY HAS HISTORICAL AND OTHER BUILDINGS HERE IN TOBIN HILL. UH, I REALLY, UH, IF YOU WANNA REALLY LOOK HARD, YOU, YOU CAN SEE THE DOOR AND THE WINDOWS, BUT, UH, IT'S NOT FOR ANY OTHER, IT'S NOT TO, FOR, UH, DECORATION, IT'S FOR SECURITY AND TO KEEP US COMFORTABLE IN THE OLD AGE. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, WAS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, CORY? NO. OKAY. UM, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. UH, YES. LOOKING ON THE STREET VIEW OF GOOGLE, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAD, UM, SECURITY BARS ON YOUR DOOR AND WINDOW. UH, HAVE YOU REMOVED THOSE SINCE YOU PUT UP THIS NEW, UH, WR IRON AND SCREEN? UH, NO. NOT, NOT AT THE PRESENT TIME. IT HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED, UH, POSSIBLY LATER. UH, BUT, UH, WE HAD TO, UH, INVEST MONEY AND GETTING ALL THIS WROUGHT IRON WORK DONE JUST TO BE SECURE. UH, TOBIN MILL, YOU KNOW, UH, THERE'S STILL ALL KINDS OF CHARACTERS THAT WALK UP AND DOWN ST. MARY STREET. UH, IT'S, UH, AND WE USED TO HAVE PEOPLE RUNNING THROUGH THE YARD, UH, YEARS AGO MM-HMM. AND PEOPLE WASN'T COMING UP TO THE DOOR. OKAY. AND I HAD TO GET A LIFT, UH, PUT IN BECAUSE, UH, SO I WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HOPPING DOWN STEPS AND, UH, COMING UP STEPS ON MY DAR AIR. UH, SO IT, IT'S, UH, IT'S OUT OF NECESSITY THAT WE NEED THESE THINGS, NOT, NOT BECAUSE, UH, FOR ANY OTHER REASON. I THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, YEAH, I WAS WRONG. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS? WE HAVE A VOICEMAIL, UM, THAT WAS PROVIDED IN FEBRUARY WHEN THIS WAS RESET SO IT DIDN'T GET CARRIED OVER. SO LET'S PLAY THAT. OKAY. SECOND, WE'RE PRESSING BUTTONS AND WE HEAR A, I AM FREDERICA KUSHNER. MY ADDRESS IS 4 0 5 EAST MYRTLE STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 2. [04:20:03] I'M SPEAKING FOR THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. THIS CONCERNS ITEM NUMBER THREE D 33 ON THE H D R C AGENDA FOR, UM, UH, FEBRUARY THE 17TH. A REQUEST FOR FRONT YARD FENCE INSTALLATION, FRONT PORCH SCREEN INSTALLATION, AND EXTERIOR MODIFICATION AT 2211 NORTH ST. MARY'S STREET. THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE BECAME AWARE OF WORK BEING DONE AT 2211 NORTH ST. MARY'S THROUGH AN EMAIL SENT BY A NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR TO THAT ADDRESS ON SAYING WHAT WAS DONE TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE. WE AGREE WITH THE NEIGHBOR AND WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRE UH, PRESERVATION STAFF. THE PORCH MAY CERTAINLY BE SCREENED, SCREENED IN, BUT NOT WITH OPAQUE BLACK METAL SCREENS. IN ADDITION, THE PORCH RAILING, WHICH WAS REMOVED, IS IMPORTANT TO THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING AND SHOULD BE REPLACED, BUT DUE TO ITS LOCATION WITHIN A FEW YARDS OF THE NORTH ST. MARY'S RIGHT OF WAY, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE ERECTION OF A FENCE, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT IMPEDE PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE ON THE SIDEWALK BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE BUILDING. WE SUPPORT O H P STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON ITEM ONE, FENCING AND ITEM TWO PORCH ENCLOSURE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO THIS CASE. OKAY. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT ABOUT, UH, THE, THE SCREEN ASSEMBLY THAT IS INSTALLED AND THE IMAGES. IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO TELL WHAT THE FILM MATERIAL IS. IS THAT PERFORATED METAL BEHIND THE VERTICAL BARS IN DECORATION OR CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT MATERIAL THAT IS? YOU WANT ME TO SPEAK? OKAY. YES, PLEASE. UH, THE, UH, PORCH, UH, ENCLOSURE IS, UH, WROUGHT IRON AND IT IS A, A LIFETIME, UH, WARRANTY. IF I WERE TO GET SOME KIND OF FLIMSY SCREEN, IT COULD BE, UH, EASILY PERFORATED. OKAY. AND, UM, I REALLY JUST DON'T, UH, SEE HOW, UH, I DON'T THINK IT'S OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THIS HOUSE. IT MAY NOT BE THE WOOD ORIGINAL WOOD PORCH THAT WAS ON THERE, BUT THIS IS HOW WE NEED IT NOW FOR OUR ANIMALS, FOR OUR SECURITY, FOR OURSELVES, UH, TO BE ABLE TO SIT IN PEACE OUT ON THE FRONT PORCH AND ENJOY THE NICE BREEZE, UH, OR TO BE ABLE TO, UH, YOU KNOW, MAKE MY MOTHER A MEAL AND, AND SERVE HER OUT THERE UNDER THAT BIG TREE. UH, I REALLY, UH, I DIDN'T THINK THAT, UH, THIS REALLY, UH, COULD INVOLVE ANYBODY ELSE. AND, UH, THE GENTLEMAN ON EACH SIDE ARE ARCHITECT. OKAY. 2209, UH, DAVIS SPRINGFIELD BOUGHT 2209 FOR MY AUNT LESLIE LOBO. MY GREAT-GRANDFATHER GOT THESE PROPERTIES A LONG TIME AGO. I, I DON'T REALLY LIKE SOMEBODY MOVING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN TRYING TO DICTATE TO ME WHAT I CAN HAVE ON MY FRIEND'S PORCH. I THOUGHT THAT'S MY PROPERTY AND MY RIGHT TO EXERCISE AND TO DO THE THINGS I NEEDED TO DO. AND I THINK Y'ALL ARE BEING A LITTLE BIT FRIVOLOUS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. JUST TRYING TO, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE MATERIAL IS THAT IS IN THE, IN THE SCREEN. UM, GISELLE, IS THAT, IS THAT A HARD METAL WITH TINY HOLES IN IT OR IS IT LIKE A, UH, WIRE MESH THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN LIKE A WINDOW SCREEN? JUST THINK OF LIKE A WROUGHT IRON DOOR, LIKE A WR IRON DOOR IN ANY HOUSE. IT'S KIND OF LIKE, IT'S LIKE A METAL, IT'S SCREEN, IT'S JUST A SCREEN. I, I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S WORTH SHOOTING STRAIGHT WITH THE APPLICANT. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I'VE EVER SEEN COME, UH, PAST, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION. AND, AND I THINK MUCH OF WHAT IT IMPLICATES IS REALLY THE RAILING, RIGHT. THAT THE RAILING DISAPPEARED AND THAT THAT HORIZONTAL RAILING IS REALLY, UM, A PART OF THE HOUSE. AND, YOU KNOW, I I, YOU KNOW, I I I FEEL FOR, FOR THE APPLICANT BECAUSE, AND PEOPLE END UP IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS WITHOUT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY'RE GETTING THEMSELVES [04:25:01] INTO, BUT THAT BEING A FACT, SO WE CAN'T BEEN IN THIS DISTRICT. WE DIDN'T JUST GET HERE. WE'VE BEEN HERE. WELL, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN IS THAT ONCE, ONCE YOU BECOME A HISTORIC DISTRICT, LIKE WHAT, WHICH, WHICH MEANS THAT SOMEBODY SAID, WE WANNA BE A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND EVERYBODY, UH, AGREED TO BE A HISTORIC DISTRICT, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S ANOTHER LAYER OF REGULATION THAT IS APPLIED. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, I JUST HAVE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS PASS. RIGHT. 'CAUSE IT'S A VOTE. I THINK WHAT, WHAT THE, WHAT THE, WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS TELLING YOU MORE OR LESS THOUGH, IS THAT IF THE RAILING IS REPLACED, THAT THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SCREEN SYSTEM WOULD GO BEHIND THAT RAILING AND WITHIN THE INSIDE OF THOSE COLUMNS. BUT EVEN THEN, I THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE MORE TALKING ABOUT IT BEING YOUR TRADITIONAL SCREEN WELL DONE SO THAT IT DOESN'T JUST FALL RIGHT. A, A GOOD SCREEN, BUT, BUT THAT IT, IT WOULD ALL FALL BEHIND WHAT WOULD BE THE REMNANT OF WHAT IS THE HISTORIC HOUSE, RIGHT. WHICH IS THE, THE FACT THAT THAT RAILING WAS TAKEN DOWN AND, AND ALL OF THAT. SO JUST, JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST ME GAMBLING THAT, THAT IF IT WENT TO A VOTE THAT, THAT THEY WOULDN'T VOTE, THAT THE COMMISSION WOULDN'T VOTE TO ALLOW THIS. I WOULD THINK THAT THAT PICTURE RIGHT THERE, COREY, THE PICTURE THAT YOU HAVE OF THAT, THAT WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD PROBABLY BE ALLOWABLE WOULD BE A SOLUTION THAT THAT SITS BEHIND ALL OF WHAT YOU SEE THERE. BUT THAT STILL GIVES YOU THAT OPEN SPACE IN THE MIDDLE. BUT THAT, BUT THAT SITS BEHIND IT AND DOESN'T TOUCH ANY OF THAT. UM, UH, AND, AND OF COURSE THEY'VE ALREADY, UH, KIND OF AGREED THAT, THAT THE FENCE IS IS, UH, ON THE OUTSIDE RIGHT, ON YOUR, ON YOUR STREET SIDE. THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT THEY UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT. IT'S, IT'S JUST WHEN IT COMES TO THE PART OF HAVING REMOVED THE RAILING ON THE HOUSE AND HAVING THAT, THAT RIGHT IRONING SYSTEM, I'M SURE THAT STAFF WOULD, COULD BE ABLE TO DIRECT YOU TOWARD A, TOWARD AN ARCHITECTURAL SOLUTION. I'M NOT SURE THAT IT WOULD SOLVE SECURITY ISSUES, BUT IT DEFINITELY WOULD SOLVE MOSQUITO ISSUES. AS COMMISSIONER VELASQUE SAID. WHAT ISSUES, I'M SORRY, MA'AM. IT WOULD BE WHAT? THAT THE SOLUTION WOULD MOST DEFINITELY DEAL WITH MOSQUITOES, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT, THAT THERE'S AN APPLICABLE SOLUTION FOR, UM, UM, BURGLARY. UM, UNLESS OF COURSE THERE WAS A SYSTEM THERE, THERE HAS BEEN MANY BURGLARIES AT THIS ADDRESS AND AT 2209 WHEN IT WAS IN THE FAMILY. OKAY. YES MA'AM. AND THAT IS THE REASON. UH, OKAY. ALSO, UH, THERE WAS SOMEBODY, UH, ONE OF THE CONTRACTORS THAT WAS REAL GOOD ABOUT GETTING ALL THE PERMITS. ROSE HILL, I'M SURE ALL OF YOU KNOW HER. UH, SHE DID, UH, SOME THINGS THAT I DON'T EVEN WANNA GO THERE, BUT SHE WAS KIND OF SHADY. OKAY. SHE ACTUALLY HAD GOTTEN THE DAMN PERMIT, AND WHEN I TOLD HER I DIDN'T WANT HER HERE ANYMORE, I THINK SHE HAD TO PERMIT IT PULLED FOR THE FENCE. OKAY. WELL, I DO WILL NOT WANNA PUT UP ANY KIND OF SCREEN THAT'S GOING TO EASILY BE TORN. WE DON'T HAVE MONEY TO BE SPENDING EVERY LITTLE BIT TO REPAIR THINGS. WELL, WELL, THIS IS, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FITZER. I'M PRETTY STRONG ON STANDING ON, UH, I THINK IT NEEDS TO STAY. SO, UH, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO? WELL, UH, CHAIRMAN FITZER, UH, I JUST, I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A MOTION, PLEASE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. YES. UM, I BELIEVE STAFF HAS IT RIGHT. I'M PRETTY CLEAR IN THIS ISSUE. UH, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE BASED ON FINDING C DENIAL OF ITEM TWO BASED ON FINDING D NOTE THAT THE PORCH RAILING SHOULD BE RESTORED IN THE SCREENS REMOVED. UH, AND JUST TO PREEMPT THIS, I WOULD LET THE APPLICANT KNOW THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE H D R C CAN BE APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. UM, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY THAT WE CAN TAKE ACTION. ANY OTHER ACTION THAT WE CAN TAKE TODAY. SO, SORRY, I, I WOULD SECOND, SECOND THE MOTION CHAIRMAN, BUT I, I, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A, A COMMENT OR STAFF THAT I BELIEVE THAT STAFF COULD, COULD WORK WITH THIS APPLICANT TO COME UP WITH AN ARCHITECTURAL SOLUTION FOR WHAT SHE'S TRYING TO ACHIEVE. I, I REALLY DO FEEL THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE'VE, WE'VE APPROVED SCREENS THAT ARE PUT WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE INTERIOR OF A, OF A PORCH, JUST LIKE THAT ONE THAT I DON'T THINK IT CAME BEFORE US, BUT IT'S GONNA COME BEFORE US. UH, THAT STAFF SAID THAT IT WAS THEIR OPINION THAT IT WAS OKAY, THAT THIS IS THAT KIND OF CONTEXT AND THEN WITH, AND THEN WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF [04:30:01] A SECURITY SYSTEM THAT MIMICS A SCREEN SYSTEM, I THINK STAFF COULD HELP HER WITH THAT. SO, I, I, WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. UM, MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. UH, GROUP? UH, YES. GROUP. AYE. FETZER AYE. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. UH, THAT IS ALL OF THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT WE CAN HANDLE TODAY. UH, EXCEPT FOR MAYBE APPROVAL OF THE, UH, MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 3RD, 2021. WE DO NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 3RD. WE NEED A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE OTHER ITEMS FIRST. OKAY. I'M SORRY. YES. A MOTION TO POSTPONE ITEM 1721 AND 28. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER FISH. I MOVE TO POSTPONE, UM, THOSE ITEMS YOU'VE JUST MENTIONED. SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. AND NOW A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3RD, 2021. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ. I MOVE TO MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES FOR ITY FEBRUARY 3RD. SECOND. COMMISSIONER GU, UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. MOTION TO ADJOURN. COMMISSIONER FISH, I MOVE TO ADJOURN. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU COREY. EDWARD. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.