* 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. WE'RE LIVE. [00:00:04] HEY JEFF, WE'RE LIVE. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO [Roll Call] ORDER THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR WE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17TH, 2021. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? HERE. FISH HERE. GIBBS? HERE. QUEZ? HERE. AREOLA HERE. CARPENTER. HERE. RUB HERE. BOWMAN. THAT SIR. HERE LAO. UM, WE HAVE A QUORUM. BEFORE WE GET STARTED, WE DO HAVE A BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING TRANSLATION SERVICES FOR THE MEETING. THE INTERPRET. THANK YOU. WE PLEASE HAVE THE CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT. THE HISTORIC AND [Chairman’s Statement] DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION IS AN ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I'M JEFFREY FETZER, CHAIRMAN AND THE VICE CHAIR IS SCOTT CARPENTER. IT IS A FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION TO ADVISE THE CITY MANAGER AND ALL RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENTS CONCERNING ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS FOR PROPERTIES AND 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. AND AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CAN BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH THIS MEETING THROUGH LIVESTREAM. THEY CAN ALSO LISTEN TO THE MEETING THROUGH AUDIO ONLY BY CALLING 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3. AND IN ENGLISH OR IN SPANISH. THE MEETING IS BEING RECORDED IN SPANISH. FOR THOSE 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. 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 TYPIST 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. THANK YOU. UM, WE HAVE ANOTHER FULL AGENDA, SO WE'LL GET RIGHT TO IT. UM, BEFORE WE GET INTO CONSENT ITEMS, UM, WE DO HAVE ONE ITEM, WHICH IS THE [Consideration and Approval of Proposed Code of Conduct for the Historic and Design Review Commission.] CONSIDERATION, APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CODE OF CONDUCT, CO CONDUCT FOR THE H C R C. UM, WE HAD ASKED YOU ALL FOR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT, UM, CODE OF CONDUCT AND WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY. UM, SO IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS, WE CAN HAVE A MOTION IN ACTION. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. CAN ASK US A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF THE CODE OF COMM, CODE OF CONDUCT FOR, UH, SUBMITTED BY THE CITY. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. AREOLA. AYE. CARPENTER. AYE. RUBE AYE. AND FETZER AYE. MOTION CARRIES. UM, SO ON THE SCREEN YOU CAN SEE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WELL AS THOSE THAT ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY. UM, QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT, YOU CAN SEE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE INDIVIDUAL AGENDA. ITEMS 31, 33 AND 35 HAVE BEEN POSTPONED. UM, WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY. UM, I DON'T BELIEVE WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FOR THOSE. UM, AND THEN, UM, AT THIS TIME I WILL GO AHEAD [Public Comments] AND READ COMMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED FOR, UM, CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. GIMME ONE MOMENT TO PULL 'EM UP HERE. OKAY. UM, THE FIRST IS FOR, UM, ITEM 1 6 24 DAWSON, UM, SUBMITTED BY SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS OF THE DIGNITY HILL RESORT DISTRICT. UM, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S [00:05:01] RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS ITEM. ITEM 2 4 53 CLUB, UM, SUBMITTED BY, UH, DREA GARZA. PRESENT OF THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. M P N A APPRECIATES NEIGHBORS WHO INVEST IN THEIR HISTORIC HOMES. N P N A NOTES THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS FOR THE 4 53 CLUB DRIVE BUILT IN 1935 BY, IN STRAUSS ATCH ONE, REPLACING THE TWO ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS WITH DOUBLE DOORS CREATES A NEW FENESTRATION PATTERN. THE SECTION OF STONE TO BE REMOVED TO LENGTHEN THE OPENING FOR THE NEW DOORS IS NOT MENTIONED. THE STONE REMOVED SHOULD BE STORED ON SITE FOR FUTURE USE. THE INGRESS AND EGRESS ARE NOT CLEARLY STATED. FOR THE NEW DOORS ON THE PUR BEAM FOUNDATION, AS EXTERIOR STEP WOULD BE NEEDED, PLEASE SPECIFY WOOD MATERIAL FOR DOORS AS THE APPLICATION STATES WOOD STILL AND OR FIBERGLASS TO INSTALL A CLOSET TO SCREEN THE TANKLESS WATER HEATER MOUNTED TO THE SIDE DOOR. OPENING NOTE, THE DOOR REMOVED ON IN NOVEMBER, 2020 WAS THE ORIGINAL WOOD DOOR. THEREFORE, A LOSS OF HISTORIC MATERIAL HAS OCCURRED. ALTHOUGH THE WATER HEATER IS ALREADY INSTALLED, IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, SIDEWALK AND SLASH STREET SLASH PARK. WE NOTE THE APPLICATION DOES NOT STATE THE SPECIFIC SIZE OF THE CLOSET. ENCLOSURE AND VENT. THE WATER CLOSET SHOULD BE MINIMIZED AND MASSING DUE TO LIMITED PROPERTY SETBACKS AND HIGH VISIBILITY. THE MATERIAL FOR THE WATER CLOSET AS STATED AND THE GUIDELINES SHOULD BE OF SMOOTH FINISH AND NOT THE MATERIAL IN THE APPLICATION, WHICH SAVES A ROUGH FINISH. THE EXTERIOR DOORWAY WHERE THE TANKLESS WATER HEATER IS MOUNTED SHOULD BE A SMOOTH FINISH WOOD EXTERIOR AND BE INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS. WE THANK H D R C FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF OUR COMMENTS AND ASK FOR ASSISTANCE IN ADDRESSING OUR CONCERNS FOR THIS CASE. ITEM 3 19 29 WEST KINGS HIGHWAY. UM, DREA GARZA SUBMITS FOR THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THEY SUPPORT O H P STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEMOLITION FOR DEMOLITION BASED ON THE GUIDELINES FOR 1929 WEST KINGS HIGHWAY. WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THE RECOMMENDATION TO DOCUMENT THE STRUCTURE SALVAGE MATERIALS AND THE PERMEABLE SURFACING OF THE AREA OF DEMOLITION. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR COMMENTS. UM, ITEM 5 3 11 MUNCIE, UM, SUBMITTED BY SCOTT ALBERT. ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS AT THE DIGNITY NEW HILL STORE DISTRICT, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. ITEM 6 3 21 CLUB DRIVE. UH, DREA GARZA SUBMITS FOR THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT THEY APPRECIATE NEIGHBORS WHO INVEST IN THEIR HISTORIC HOMES. WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT NOTE THE ROOF DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS DO NOT DETAIL HOW THE NEW ROOF WILL INTERSECT WITH THE EXISTING ROOF, NOR ITS HEIGHT. M P N A IS SUPPORTIVE OF A ROOF LINE NOT TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING WESTERN SINGLE STORY SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR COMMENTS. ITEM 8 4 0 3 EAST EVERGREEN. UM, MARISSA GARZA SUBMITS, UH, WE ARE PATRICK AND LISA'S NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF THEIR PROPERTY SHARING THE PROPERTY LINE. OUR TWO PROPERTIES ARE THE ONLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH GARAGE DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO THE SIDE STREET PASCAL. WE HAVE SEEN THE DESIGN AND MATERIALS PROPOSED WITH THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION AND WE FULLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL. PATRICK AND LISA LOVE TO CARE ABOUT CARE ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY AND THEIR PROPERTY AS IT SHOWS. WITH THIS APPROPRIATE DESIGN FOR THE AREA. WE URGE THE COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS IN THIS AREA AS THEY TRY TO MAKE INVESTMENTS IN THEIR PROPERTIES. UM, FOR THE SAME CASE. 4 0 3 EAST EVERGREEN. WE HAVE CINDY ROSEN 11 NEXT DOOR TO THE URA AT 4 0 7 EAST EVERGREEN AND I FULLY SUPPORT THEIR PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. UM, SAME CASE RANDALL ROSEN SUBMITS. I AM A 20 PLUS YEAR RESIDENT OF THE TOBIN HILL AND FULLY SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. I HAVE A CLEAR VIEW OF THE PROJECT SITE FROM MY KITCHEN WINDOWS AND THIS NEW STRUCTURE WILL BE A WELCOME SITE FOR THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, NEXT FOR ITEM TEN SEVEN THIRTY TWO NORTH OLIVE, UM, SCOTT ALBERT SUBMITS ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT WE SUPPORT STAFF'S. RECOMMENDATIONS. ITEM 10 19 40 WEST MULBERRY, UH, DREA GARZA SUBMITS FOR THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THE N P A APPRECIATES NEIGHBORS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN NOT ONLY IMPROVING THEIR RESIDENCES, BUT ALSO FINDING WAYS TO ENHANCE THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THEIR HISTORIC HOMES. REGARDING 1940 WEST MULBERRY, A CONTRIBUTING CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOME IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WE REQUEST THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION TO BE CONSISTENT IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE H H C R C FOR ROOF CHANGE MATERIAL SHINGLED TO METAL, UM, IN THE MONTICELLO PARK STORE DISTRICT. INCONSISTENT O H P RECOMMENDATIONS AND PLACEMENT OF CASES ON THE H C R C AGENDAS ARE NOT FAIR TO THE APPLICANTS THE H C R C COMMISSIONERS OR COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS. FOR THIS REASON, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH O H P RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1940 WEST MULBERRY AVENUE AND REQUEST THAT THIS CASE BE HEARD INDIVIDUALLY. THIS IS THE SAME ACTION TAKEN BY O H P AND H D R C ON FEBRUARY 3RD, 2021 FOR CASE 20 21 0 0 2 FOR 2231 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE. A MINIMAL TRADITIONAL STYLE HOME WITH A CRAFTSMAN INFLUENCE WHEN THE ROOF MATERIAL CHANGE FROM SINGLE TO METAL WAS REQUESTED. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR COMMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR CONSISTENCY. UM, ITEM 12 9 11 TO NINE 17 NORTH PINE, UM, SCOTT ALBERT SUBMITS ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE NUITY HILL STORE DISTRICT, WE DO NOT SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. THE ADDITION OF CARPORTS WITH GARAGE DOORS RETURNS THE PROJECT TO THE LONG CONTINUOUS MASS THAT WAS CHANGED TO GAIN YOUR APPROVAL. HAD THE CARPORTS, WHICH GARAGE DOORS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL REVIEW, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED. I URGE THE COMMISSIONERS TO REMEMBER THEIR DISCUSSIONS AND REVIEW. PAGE 16 OF THE AUGUST 15TH, 2020 APPLICATION. WE [00:10:01] RECOMMEND THE GARAGE DOORS NOT BE ALLOWED. FURTHERMORE, NOT SHOWN IN THE APPLICATION, BUT CLEARLY SHOWN IN THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION ARE STAIRS, EX ARE STAIRS EXITING THE BUILDING ADJACENT TO WHERE THE PROPOSED CARPORTS WILL BE. THE SLOPE OF THE LOT WILL REQUIRE SEVERAL STAIRS AND WILL CONFLICT WITH THE CARPORT. THIS WAS THE CASE WITH THE ADDED REQUESTS FOR CARPORT FROM THIS DEVELOPER AT 9 0 9 NORTH PINE AND RESULTED IN THE CARPORT REQUEST BEING DENIED BY THIS COMMISSION. UM, ITEM 14 4 0 6 NORTH PINE SCOTT OPPERS SUBMITS ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DI DIGNITY HILL STORE DISTRICT THAT THEY SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 17, I BELIEVE, UM, PATTY ZION SUBMITS FOR THE KING OR THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO. UM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO DOES NOT BELIEVE A DETER A DETERMINATION OF CONTRIBUTING STATUS FOR THE DE LA GARZA HOUSE CAN BE MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTEXT INTO WHICH IT WILL BE PLACED. THIS, THE DECISION SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DEVELOPMENT NOT ONLY THE LOT ON WHICH WE AGREE IT SHOULD REMAIN, BUT ALSO THE ADJACENT LOT FOR WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PROPOSED PLAN. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE HOUSE HAS LOST MUCH OF ITS INTEGRITY OF SETTING, GIVEN THE HOUSE'S ALREADY PRECARIOUS STATUS BY NATIONAL REGISTERED STAFF AND THE, AND THE NECESSITY FOR IT TO REMAIN CONTRIBUTING IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE HISTORIC TAX CREDITS. IT IS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT TO KNOW HOW THE HOUSE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT ON THE ADJACENT LOT PRIOR DUE TO A DETERMINATION, UM, FOR THE SAME CASE ONE OR TWO SOUTH LAREDO, UM, ANTHONY DELGADO SUBMITS HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT THIS HISTORIC HOME THAT ONCE BELONGED TO ONE OF THE PROMINENT FAMILIES DATING BACK TO THE CITY'S FORMATIVE YEARS NOT BE MOVED. I HAVE REVIEWED THE DESIGNS AND I'M PLEASED TO SEE HOW THE HOME WILL BE AESTHETICALLY ENHANCED. UM, I'M CONCERNED WITH THE POTENTIAL DAMAGE THAT MAY BE INCURRED WITH ITS MOVE. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I'M MOST CONCERNED WITH THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT THAT MIGHT BE LOST. UM, WITH, WITH ITS MOVE AS A DESCENDANT OF SAN ANTONIO'S FIRST SPANISH COLONIAL FAMILIES, I SUGGEST THAT ANY OR ALL DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPERTY CONSIDER IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT THE THE PHYSICAL MOVEMENT OF THIS PROPERTY THAT IS WORTHY OF HISTORICAL LANDMARK STATUS. UH, WE DID NOT MOVE CASA NAVARRO, NOR WOULD NOR DID WE MOVE THE GOVERNOR'S PALACE. WE MADE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND THEM. PLEASE DO NOT MOVE THE DE LA GARZA HOUSE, UM, FOR THIS CASE. WE ALSO HAVE A VOICEMAIL. UM, SO BEAR WITH US WHILE WE PLAY THAT NOW. MY NAME IS DON MATHIS. I LIVE AT 29 19 NORTH MAINE. I'M CALLING REGARDING H D R C 2021 DASH 1 27. THE DE LA GARZA HOUSE LA GARZA MOVE. IT NOT, IT SHOULD REMAIN IN THE SAME LITTLE SPOT WHERE IT HAS RESIDED FOR GENERATIONS TO MOVE. IT WOULD BE A DEGRADATION. THOSE FOUR WALLS CONTAIN SO MUCH HISTORY. LATO HAVE LOST SO MUCH. IN THE 1960S, THE SCHOOL OF JOSE RUIZ WAS MOVED AWAY AND CELSO NAVARRO'S HOME TOO. WENT TO BROADWAY. MOVING THESE BUILDINGS BACK TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD DEFINITELY BE FOR THE GREATER GOOD. HOTELS AND OFFICES CAN BE BUILT ANYWHERE, BUT THE DE LA GARZA HOUSE BELONGS RIGHT THERE. MAKE ANOTHER PLAN. IT SHOULDN'T BE HARD, BUT DON'T MOVE CAA DE LA GARZA. NOT ONE YARD. OKAY. UM, AND THEN FINALLY, ITEM 18 415 MISSION STREET. UM, THIS COMES FROM MICKEY CONRAD. THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND CONCURS WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL AND STIPULATIONS. HOWEVER, WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE FOLLOWING ISSUES BE ADDRESSED WITH THE O H P PRIOR TO RECEIVING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. ONE SIDE AND SETBACKS FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO A VERY LARGE TREE SHOWN IN THE, IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS APPEARS TO LIE WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED RELOCATED STRUCTURE. IF SO, THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS SHOULD BE ADJUSTED TO PRESERVE THE TREE. UM, AND THOSE ARE COMMENTS FOR CONSENT ITEMS. UM, HAVING HEARD THOSE, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS [CONSENT AGENDA] WISH TO PULL ITEMS FROM CONSENT FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? CO COREY, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE DE GARA HOUSE, UH, PULLED. OKAY, WELL, WE'LL MARK THOSE ON THE SCREEN SO YOU CAN SEE THEM. COREY, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, UH, ITEM NUMBER 2 4 53 CLUB AND ALSO ITEM NUMBER SIX AND 11. AND COREY, I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM 12. OKAY. IF NO FURTHER, UM, WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE REMAINDER. MR. [00:15:01] CHAIRMAN, THIS IS, UH, MR. CARPENTER. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS FOR ITEMS 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, AND 18. I'LL ASK US A SECOND. UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, JUST FOR YOUR REFERENCE, YOUR AUDIO'S A LITTLE LOW. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN CONTROL OR NOT, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO HEAR YOU. IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT LOW. DOES THE CHAIR WANNA CALL FOR A MOTION? LET ME MAKE SURE YOU'RE ON MUTE. I'M SORRY. UH, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA ITEMS AS NOTED. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. AREOLA? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. RUBE BET, SIR. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. UM, SO LET'S DO ITEM 2 4 53 [2. 21-2317 Address/Description: 453 CLUB DR HDRC Case No.: 2021-055 Historic District Name: Monticello Park Applicant: Jonathan Pennington/PENNINGTON JONATHAN A & SUMMER D Request: Rear fenestration modifications, water heater closet installation City Council Dist.: 7] CLUB DRIVE. UM, WE, DO YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE? I DON'T, IT'S GOING STRAIGHT TO, UH, TO VOICEMAIL. SO LET ME TRY TWO MORE TIMES. OKAY. WELL, IN THE MEANTIME, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ABOUT THIS ITEM? YES, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY, CORY? NOW WE CAN. IT'S JUST A LITTLE LOW . OKAY. I WILL CONTINUE TO FIDDLE WITH THE ADJUSTMENTS HERE. BUT THE REASON WHY I PULLED THIS CASE IS BECAUSE THE, UH, THE PROJECT IS CALLING FOR THE REMOVAL OF TWO, UH, HISTORIC WOOD WINDOWS, UM, AND REPLACING WITH THE DOOR, WHICH, UH, NECESSITATES, UH, REMOVING SOME OF THE LIMESTONE AT THE REAR. AND NORMALLY WE DO NOT APPROVE, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT ALTERATIONS TO, UH, THE FENESTRATION OF A BUILDING. UH, THIS IS A SMALL KIND OF COTTAGE. IT ALREADY HAS A DOOR THAT GOES TO THE OUTSIDE, UH, TO THE REAR. SO I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY, UH, THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT STAFF FINDS APPROPRIATE. SO WHAT IS STIPULATED IN THE APPROVAL IS THAT THE NEW DOORS, THE FRENCH DOORS THAT YOU SEE IN THIS DRAWING, UM, EXISTS WITHIN THE CURRENT WIDTH OF THE WINDOW OPENINGS. SO THE STONE WILL NOT BE CUT TO THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT, IT WILL ONLY BE CUT BELOW. UM, AND SO VERY OFTEN, UH, WINDOWS ARE APPROVED FOR DOORS. UM, THAT MODIFICATION ON NON-PRIMARY FACADES. UH, WE HAVE THE ADDED STIPULATION THAT THE WINDOWS BE SALVAGED AND RETAINED ON SITE AS WELL. CO. CORY, IS THIS THE PROJECT THAT WE HAD A D R C ON? UM, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. OKAY. UM, LET'S GO TO PHOTO 12. I BELIEVE THOSE ARE THE WINDOWS IN QUESTION. SO AS STIPULATED, UM, THE, THE DOORWAY OPENING WOULD, WOULD REMAIN WITHIN THAT EXISTING STONE OPENING, BUT THE STONE WOULD BE CUT DOWN TO THE, TO THE SLAB. THIS IS, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER. UH, OTHER QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP FROM THE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS WAS THAT THERE ARE NO DETAILS ON THE SIZE OR MATERIALS OF THE WATER HEATER CLOSET. YEAH, LAUREN, IF YOU CAN SCROLL DOWN. UM, I THINK 17 IS A BETTER EXAMPLE. UM, WE CAN, WE CAN REQUIRE THAT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION, UM, BEFORE ISSUING A CERTIFICATE. UM, IT IS INTENDED TO FIT WITH AN EXISTING DOOR OPENING. AND SO, SO WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION. UM, BUT WE CAN HAVE VERIFICATION, FIELD VERIFICATION IF THAT'S NEEDED. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE IN THE MOTION, RIGHT? OF COURSE, YES. I SHALL WE MOVE TO CASE NUMBER [6. 21-2305 Address/Description: 321 CLUB DR HDRC Case No.: 2021-068 Historic District Name: Monticello Park Applicant: TREVINO JOHN C & PATRICIA V Request: Replace rear addition with new addition City Council Dist.: 7] SIX? AND IF WE GET THE APPLICANT FOR CASE NUMBER TWO, COME BACK TO IT? YES. I'M CALLING UH, CASE NUMBER SIX NOW. THANK YOU. YEAH, WE HAS BOTH OF THOSE APPLICANTS. OH, OKAY. UM, IF, IF THERE'S A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF STIPULATIONS, I'M THE APPLICANT FOR ITEM TWO IS IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS SO FAR. UM, IT WOULD ONLY BE IF THE STIPULATION WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE NOT ALREADY ABLE TO AGREE TO. I DON'T THINK THE DIMENSIONS IS [00:20:01] GONNA BE AN ISSUE. I, I'D MAKE, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO, TO APPROVE WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS IF ALSO TO, TO BEGIN ANY DIALOGUE. UH, THEN I WOULD MAKE A MOTION. SO I MAKE A MOTION WITH STAFF STIPULATION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I'LL SECOND. CAN WE ADD THE STIPULATION CONCERNING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE, FROM THE COMMENTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WELL, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THE REAL, REAL REASON THAT I MADE THE MOTION BECAUSE IT'S, UM, UH, APPROPRIATE FOR US TO DO THAT IN DISCUSSION. SO I, I I THINK IT, IT'S, UM, MO MOST DEFINITELY, I I, BUT I DO WANNA, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT CONTRADICTS WITH THE COMMENT I WANTED TO MAKE TO, TO STAFF. I, I JUST WANTED TO COMMEND THEM ON, ON THE CONSIDERATION BECAUSE IT'S, I, I KNOW IT, IT, IT STEPS QUITE AWAY FROM WHAT IS VERY TYPICAL. BUT IN TERMS OF AN ALTERATION, IT, IT IS AN ALTERATION, IT IS A OF APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THE ALTERATION TO OCCUR. HEADER STRUCTURES ALL THERE. AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE HOUSE DOESN'T CHANGE MUCH. BUT IT, BUT IT ALSO KIND OF REMOVES US A STEP AWAY FROM THE RIGIDITY. SO I JUST WANT TO TELL STAFF THAT I APPRECIATE THAT CONSIDERATION. 'CAUSE I THINK IT, IT GIVES THE HOUSE ALSO A LITTLE BIT OF BREATHING ROOM. UM, AND, UH, COMMISSIONER GROUP, COULD YOU DEFINE, UH, WHAT, WHAT IT IS THAT, THAT, THAT STIPULATION THAT YOU WANNA ADD? IS, DOES IT CONTRADICT WITH WHAT I JUST SAID? WELL, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ, WE ARE THE ONE DOING THE MOTION. THERE ARE SOME COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY'RE ASKING, UM, WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE WATER CLOSET OR STONE. I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER CARPENTER WANTS TO ADD THOSE STIPULATIONS SINCE PULL THE ITEM. YEAH. I BELIEVE THE SUGGESTIONS WERE TO SALVAGE THE STONE THAT WAS REMOVED AND THEN ALSO TO ADD, UM, DIMENSIONS, UH, TO THE DOCUMENTATION, DIMENSIONS AND MATERIAL, CORRECT? MM-HMM. . SO THAT WOULD BE, UH, AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION. COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ? I, I'D BE OKAY WITH, I, I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE THAT I, I WOULD, UH, THINK THINKING THAT WAY, BUT, UH, MOST DEFINITELY, UH, YES, YES, I'D BE OPEN TO THAT OF COURSE. SO THE MOTION, I WOULD AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THE STIPULATION FROM COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE STONE AND DIMENSIONING RIGHT. AND THE MATERIAL SPECIFICATION FOR THE, FOR THE SHED AND, AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATION FOR THE SHED? YES. DOES THE SECOND, UH, ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT? YES. ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT. AND SINCE WE'RE HAVING DIFFICULTY GETTING THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE, IF THE MOTION FAILS, WE CAN CONSIDER MOVING THIS DOWN THE LINE UNTIL PERHAPS WE CAN GET THE APPLICANT ON AND ASK MORE QUESTIONS. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. WE, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YOU HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELAZQUEZ? AYE. AREOLA, I THINK I'M JUST GONNA ABSTAIN THIS ONE. CARPENTER. AYE, CAN YOU REPEAT NAY? NO, THANK YOU. UH, GROUP. AYE BET SIR. AYE, MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT FOR ITEM UM, SIX? BETWEEN, ARE YOU STILL HERE? YES. OKAY. UM, ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS TO THE APPLICANT? THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. I, UH, PULLED IT FROM CONSENT AGENDA FROM THE COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS ASKING ABOUT THE ROOF LINE AND ABOUT THE HEIGHT. DID THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS? DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? JAY? YOU CAN ANSWER. I, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T KNOW IF MS. CARVINO DID. WELL, THE COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS THAT, UM, AND I GUESS I COULD JUST ADD THAT AS A STIPULATION AND THEN YOU CAN, UH, MAYBE DETAIL THAT TO STAFF IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEW ROOF, HOW IT WILL INTERSECT WITH THE EXISTING ROOF AND THE HEIGHT. YES, I CAN REVISE THOSE DRAWINGS OR MAKE CLARIFICATION TO STAFF. I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS. [00:25:03] ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER? OH, SORRY. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ. I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I ADD THE STIPULATION ABOUT THE ROOF DETAIL? YES, THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I AMEND MY, UH, MOTION TO, UH, ADD THE STIPULATION THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER GRU, UH, SPOKE OF WITH THE APPLICANT. I STILL SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MAY HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ. AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. AREOLA? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. BOO. AYE BETS? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. IT BRINGS US TO ITEM 11 19 40 [11. 21-2313 Address/Description: 1940 W MULBERRY AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-061 Historic District Name: Monticello Park Applicant: Tatiana Shear/ROOF FIX Request: Roof replacement City Council Dist.: 7] WEST MULBERRY. UM, I BELIEVE THAT ONE IS WE AS WELL, SO I'M SURE HE IS TRYING TO GET THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? I THINK THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT CONSISTENCY IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THAT WAS MY REASON FOR PULLING IT. UM, I WILL SAY WE HAVE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT. UM, SO THE GUIDELINES, UH, RECOMMEND THAT, UM, ROOFS BE REPLACED TO MATCH EITHER WHAT WAS THERE HISTORICALLY OR TO A MATERIAL THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STYLE. UM, WE ROUTINELY RECOMMEND METAL ROOFS FOR CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOUSES SUCH AS THIS, THIS ONE I DO HAVE THE ON THE LINE AS WELL. GO AHEAD SCOTT. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. AND, AND I CONCUR WITH THAT. I THINK, UH, PARTICULARLY HERE IN TEXAS, MANY CRAFTSMAN, UH, STYLE HOMES HISTORICALLY HAD, UH, EITHER STANDING SEAM OR FLAT FOLD, UH, CRIMP SEAMS. AND SO IT, IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE, UH, IN OPPOSITION TO THAT. UM, AND AS WE'VE DONE ON PREVIOUS PROPERTIES, WHENEVER THERE'S A MATERIAL THAT IS KIND OF MORE NOBLE AND ENSURES THE LONG TERM, UM, HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF THE HISTORIC PROPERTY, I ENCOURAGE OWNERS TO MAKE THAT INVESTMENT. SO I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELAZQUEZ AYE. AREOLA? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. RUBE. AYE ZER, A QUESTION CARRIES. UM, THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 12, [12. 21-2301 Address/Description: 911 N PINE ST, 913 N PINE ST, 915 N PINE ST, 917 N PINE ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-098 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Khi Ransome Request: Construction of four carport structures City Council Dist.:2] UM, NINE 11 THROUGH NINE 17 NORTH PINE. UM, EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? I AM. I HAVE THE APPLICANT, RICARDO FROM CAREMARK ON THE LINE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR STAFF? I DO. UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GIBBS. UM, I PULLED THIS ITEM BASED ON, UM, SIMPLY COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, CONCERNING THE GARAGES. SO I WANTED YOU TO SPEAK TO THAT, SPEAK TO THOSE ASPECTS OF IT, AND ALSO WANNA KNOW WHAT CONVERSATIONS HAVE YOU HAD WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNING THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS FITS INTO THE, UM, THE SCHEME, THE OVERALL SCHEME OF THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. SIR, YOU CAN GO AHEAD, SIR. RICARDO, WERE YOU ABLE TO HEAR THE COMMENTS THAT WERE READ? YES. OKAY, GO AHEAD. ARE WE GOING ON NOW? A COUPLE CASES AGO. RICARDO, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I'M HERE. WERE YOU ABLE TO HEAR, UH, THE COMMISSIONER'S COMMENT OR QUESTIONS? OH, NO, I DID NOT. I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. SO WE RECEIVED PUB, WE RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS, UM, CITING CONCERN WITH THE ADDITION OF THE CARPORTS AFTER THE, UM, HOUSES HAD ALREADY COME FOR APPROVAL. UM, AND ALSO CONCERNED THAT THERE ARE EXISTING SIDE STEPS THAT MIGHT, UM, MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO EVEN INSTALL THE CARDBOARDS OR PARK THERE. UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THOSE COMMENTS? UM, YEAH, UH, UM, IN REGARDS TO THE CARPORT, WE, YOU KNOW, WE SUBMITTED THE CARPORTS AFTERWARDS JUST BECAUSE WE'RE, WE HAVE SOME INTERESTED, UH, BUYERS AT THE MOMENT. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE THE, UH, A CARPORT AND [00:30:01] THEY ALSO MENTIONED THE, UH, THE CARPORT, UH, CARPORT GARAGE DOOR, UH, TO BE INCLUDED. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THIS REALLY, THERE, THIS IS BEING, UM, THIS IS A REQUEST FROM, FROM BUYERS. SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO GO BACK AND, AND GET THESE, UH, PERMITTED. SO, UH, WE'RE AT THE MOMENT IN REGARDS TO THE STEPS, UM, TO THE, FROM THE HOUSE TO THE, TO THE CARPORT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GONNA BE LIKE A FOOT AND A HALF THERE. UM, AND OUR, YOU KNOW, WE ARE STEPPING DOWN THOSE, UM, WE ARE STEPPING DOWN OUR SLABS. SO THERE, YOU KNOW, THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEM ON GETTING FROM THE CARPORT TO, TO THE HOUSE. UH, WE'RE, WE ARE GONNA MAKE, WE ARE GONNA BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. UM, AND TO BE, UH, YEAH, AND IT'S, AND IT'S NOT, THERE'S NO DOOR TO THE ACTUAL BUILDING. IT'S JUST ON THE FRONT, ON THE ENTRY PORCH. SO THAT PORCH, YOU KNOW, WE CAN KIND OF BUILD SOME, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T HAVE, WE CAN JUST BUILD A LITTLE, UH, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING, UH, SOME, SOME STEPS THAT GO FURTHER INTO THE ENTRY PORCH, UM, IF NEEDED. SO MY CONCERN IS, I MEAN, I, I CAN SEE THE DESIGN HERE AND I, I SEE, UM, WHAT YOU'RE EXPLAINING HERE, BUT MY OVERALL QUESTION WAS CONCERNING THE CONCERNS THAT THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD. SO ONE, HAVE YOU, UM, HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD? IF SO, WHAT WERE THOSE COMMUNICATIONS? AND TWO, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS OVERALL SCHEME, SINCE THIS THING WAS ADDED AFTERWARDS, UM, THAT IT FITS INTO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT'S THE KEY HERE, BECAUSE YOU, YOU'VE DONE WORK HERE IN, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE AND, YOU KNOW, YOU DO GET PUSHBACK FROM, UM, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UH, A DIALOGUE IS OPEN BECAUSE, UM, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY, IF, IF THEY GET BEHIND YOU, OF COURSE YOU CAN CONTINUE TO DO MORE AND MORE WORK THERE, AS LONG AS IT FITS IN WITH THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES. BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S, UM, HARMONY HERE AS IT COMES TO THIS. NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, BUCKING AGAINST THE SYSTEM AND THEN NOT INCLUDING THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOUR DECISION. YEAH. UH, WELL, JUST TO CLARIFY, WE, YOU KNOW, THERE IS ONE RECOGNIZED, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS DIGNITY HILL, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, UH, WHO THEY HAVE A HISTORIC COMMISSION, A HISTORIC REVIEW, UH, GROUP, WHICH WE DO COMMUNICATE WITH. UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT ANYBODY IS, UH, AVAILABLE TO MAKE COMMENTS TO THAT, UH, COMMITTEE. UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS. I BELIEVE THE, UH, CONCERNED CITIZEN GROUP IS A SEPARATE GROUP, UM, WHICH, UH, WE, WE DO NOT, WE, WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY'RE NOT A RECOGNIZED, UH, ASSOCIATION. SO WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE WAY WE WOULD, WE COMMUNICATE STRAIGHT TO THE COMMUNITY HEALTH, IF THE CITIZENS HAVE A COMMENT, UM, WE CAN DISCUSS IT THERE. UM, WE DIDN'T, WE DID NOT GET ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE THIS MEETING. UM, WE JUST RECEIVED AN EMAIL THIS MORNING SAYING THAT SOMEONE HAD, UH, COMMENTS ON THIS, ON THIS PROJECT. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE SURPRISED BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ON THE, WE ARE, WE SUBMITTED THIS LIKE A MONTH AGO. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THERE'S A, I THERE IS A PROCESS, WE FOLLOW THAT PROCESS. AND UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME, THE FORM IS THERE AND WE DON'T, WE CAN'T GO AND KNOCK ON EVERY DOOR WE WISH WE COULD. UM, IF I, I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW, HOW ELSE TO REACH OUT TO THE CONCERNED CITIZENS, UM, AND SIT DOWN WITH THEM IF THEY'RE NOT INVOLVED IN THE, IN THE ANNUITY HILL H PARK. UM, WE DO OUR BEST TO, YOU KNOW, TO FOLLOW THAT, TO FOLLOW THAT. AND WE DO SHARE EVERY SINGLE H R C APPLICATION THAT WE, UM, THAT WE SUBMIT. UH, WE HAVE A WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM. UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT. SO YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, UH, ABOUT THE ONE RECOGNIZED IN THE, UM, IN THE DIGNITY WITH THE HILTON DISTRICT. BUT I WANT TO CAUTION YOU THAT REGARDLESS AS TO WHETHER IT'S THE RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, PEOPLE ARE STILL NEIGHBORS IN THAT COMMUNITY, AND THEY DO STILL HAVE INPUT INTO WHAT HAPPENS INSIDE THAT COMMUNITY. THEY PAY TAXES THERE, THEY LIVE THERE, THEY'VE LIVED THERE FOR, FOR PERIODS OF TIME. SO THEY [00:35:01] DO HAVE INPUT. SO I, I WANNA CAUTION YOU INTO BEING, YOU KNOW, NOT BEING SO CALLOUS WHEN IT COMES TO THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT RECOGNIZED BECAUSE THEY ARE NEIGHBORS AND THEY ARE PEOPLE IN THAT COMMUNITY. SO, UM, THAT BEING SAID, I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS. UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. I, I DO WANT, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT STATEMENT. UH, COMMISSIONER, I MEAN, IN NO WAY I TRYING TO SAY THAT THEY ARE NOT RECOGNIZED, YOU KNOW, THAT, UH, AS, AS INDIVIDUALS, OF COURSE THEY ARE. I, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE PROCESS IN WHICH WE PRESENT OUR, OUR, OUR PROJECT IS WE PRESENT TO THE RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I JUST, I, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLARIFIED. I, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, I AM IN NO WAY TRYING TO DIMINISH ANYONE'S VALUE, UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PART OF A GROUP OR WHATEVER. SO, THANK YOU. UM, COMM, UH, CHAIRMAN'S, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. YES, SIR. I'D LIKE TO, TO, UM, REALLY ECHO FELLOW COMMISSIONER'S, UM, COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER GIBB'S COMMENTS. I THINK IT'S VERY, HE PROVIDED IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. BUT I, BUT I ESPECIALLY WANT TO TELL YOU HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS WITH RESPECT TO YOUR PARTICULAR, UH, PRESENTATION. YOU COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION QUITE A BIT AND YOU DO SUCH A GOOD JOB OF PRESENTING, AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE SO THOROUGH, EXCUSE ME, IN THE DRAWINGS THAT YOU PRESENT. UM, I THINK THAT THE CHALLENGE FOR YOU IS THAT, THAT YOU REALLY DO SUCH A GOOD JOB THAT IT, THAT THE BAR GETS RAISED ON YOU, YOU KNOW, OR YOU COULD ALSO SEE THAT MAYBE YOU'RE THE ONE CARRYING THE, CARRYING THE, THE BAR. UM, IT, IT'S, IT'S INCUMBENT ON YOU THEN, RIGHT? TO, TO THE, TO TO GO THE EXTRA MILE. YOUR, YOUR COMMENTS FOLLOWING MR. GIBBS'S COMMENTS ARE MUCH APPRECIATED AS WELL, BECAUSE YES, THERE IS A LEVEL OF IMPOSSIBILITY, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT WE CLARIFY FOR YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. SO WHAT, WHAT AS A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO SOME MAY NOT BE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO OTHERS, BUT, BUT WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT MAYBE SOMETIMES THOSE MECHANISMS AREN'T SUFFICIENT. UH, UH, AND, AND, BUT WHAT IS, IS THE, IS THE OPEN RECORD, RIGHT? IS WHEN SOMEONE SUBMITS A, A COMMENT. SO, UM, UM, I, I WANNA ASK STAFF IF, IF MAYBE WE COULD SEE IF THERE'S AN ELEVATION, UH, SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THE HOLISTIC DESIGN INTENT IS FROM AN ELEVATION, OR, I MEAN, DOES IT EXIST? RIGHT? NOT, NOT JUST A SHOT OF THE CARPORT, BUT THE WHOLE, UM, THAT HASN'T BEEN PROVIDED, UH, WITH AN AN ELEVATION, UH, THAT INCLUDES THE CARPORT IN CONCERT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION. UH, THERE'S JUST THIS, UH, THESE ELEVATIONS, UH, WE CAN GO TO PAGE FIVE, THE ELEVATIONS BY THEMSELVES. UH, THE SITE PLAN IS THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD SHOW, UH, THAT CARPORT'S IN CONTEXT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STRUCTURES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WELL, UH, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD DRAWING TO HAVE, ALTHOUGH, UH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I HAVE A BIT OF A HANDICAP BECAUSE THE, I CAN SEE FROM A PLAN, RIGHT. BUT MOST PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO. UM, OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO, NO FURTHER COMMENTS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER, IS COMMISSIONER GRU. UM, I ACTUALLY ALSO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GIBBS COMMENTS AND THEN ALSO WITH COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ AND THAT, I THINK THAT ELEVATION WAS GONNA BE MY QUESTION. I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S NEEDED FOR US TO APPROVE THIS. UNFORTUNATELY, UM, THE PROPERTY AROUND THE CORNER, THE 9 0 9 WAS ALSO APPROVED AND THEN SUBMITTED LATER FOR COURT CARPORT. AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD MENTIONED THAT. I REMEMBER THAT. I DON'T REMEMBER HOW THE FRONT OF THESE ARE, AND THE STAFF DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON GARAGE DOORS. WE DON'T USUALLY LIKE THAT JUST TO PROVE GARAGE DOORS WITHOUT WHAT'S THE MATERIAL. I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE HAVE THOSE DETAILS. I'M WORRIED ABOUT INTRODUCING A CARPORT IN THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY. UM, ALSO BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUTURE PROJECTS AROUND THE CORNER. UM, YEAH, I MEAN, I'VE, UH, I THINK THE GUIDELINES SAY THAT WE NORMALLY APPROVE CARPORTS WITH MATERIALS THAT'S FOUND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T SEE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S COMMONLY FOUND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY COMMENTS FROM STAFF ON THAT. IS THE DRIVEWAY GONNA BE EXTENDED? THAT WAS GONNA BE ONE QUESTION. HOW DOES THIS AFFECT ON THE LOT COVERAGE? AND IF THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT THIS IS PROBABLY A REQUEST FROM A FUTURE BUYER, IS THERE A CHANGE THAT WE CAN DO IT, UM, LIKE APPROVE IT ONCE THE BUYER IS THERE? AND IF THERE IS THAT NEED. I DO AGREE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WELL, WITH THE COMMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY SOME NEIGHBORS THAT THIS, UM, [00:40:01] REALLY, I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE INTRODUCING MORE MASSING TO THE PROJECT THAT'S ALREADY VERY PACKED. YEAH. UM, YEAH, I'D LIKE TO, TO, UH, RESPOND TO THOSE QUESTION, UH, QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. UM, ONE, THE DRIVEWAY, UH, WILL NOT BE EXTENDED. UM, THE DRIVEWAY, IT, IT IS, WE'RE LITERALLY BUILDING THE CARPORT RIGHT ABOVE THE, UH, THE DRIVEWAY THAT WAS PERMITTED AND, AND APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. UM, AND THEN, UH, THE, THE MATERIAL ITSELF, UM, YOU KNOW, IS, IS METAL AND WOOD, UM, WHICH IS WHAT OUR, OUR ARCHITECTURE IS ACTUALLY, UH, BEING BUILT, BUILT OF. UM, SO IT'S GONNA BE HAVING A CONNECTION. UM, WE CAN CERTAINLY, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, CREATE A, AN ELEVATION THAT SHOWS, UH, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOTH OF THEM. UM, AND, AND WE CAN, WE CAN GET THAT DONE FAIRLY QUICKLY. UM, IN REGARDS TO CARPORTS, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A, A QUICK DRIVE AROUND DIGNITY HILL, UH, WILL SHOW THAT THERE'S A BIG PRECEDENCE FOR CARPORTS, UM, THAT ARE OUR HOMES THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S RARELY GARAGES IN DIGNITY HILL. UM, SO EVERYBODY EITHER HAS ONE DRIVEWAY OR A CARPORT OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW, AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, PERMIT THOSE, UH, IN MANY OF OUR, UM, HOMES. UM, AND, UM, SO IN, YEAH. AND THEN WE, AND, AND THEN IN REGARDS TO THE, UM, WHAT WAS THE LAST THING, UH, UH, ON THE MASSING, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE CAR, THE GARAGE DOOR THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE CARPORT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS, UH, SUGGESTED. UM, BUT WE CAN CER CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT. WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT ONCE WE CREATE THE ELEVATION THAT SHOWS THE ELEVATION THAT WE THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, TOO MUCH OF A MASS NOW WE HAVE NO PROBLEM GOING BACK AND, AND, UH, JUST SAYING, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT, UM, WE CAN REMOVE THAT. IF, IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IF IT, IF IT LOOKS TOO MUCH OF A CONTINUOUS MASS, UH, AGAIN, THERE'S NO THERE, THERE, THERE'S ONLY GONNA BE ONE GARAGE DOOR, WHICH IS PROBABLY GONNA BE OPEN MOST OF THE TIME, UM, ENCLOSED DURING THE EVENINGS. UM, BUT THE OTHER THREE SIDES ARE GONNA BE OPEN TO THE AIR COMPLETELY. UM, AND WE'RE MOSTLY DOING THIS TO ENCAPSULATE OR, YOU KNOW, FENCE IN THE, THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, THE GOAL OF, OF THAT GARAGE DOOR IS REALLY, IS TO CREATE A BARRIER, UH, UH, WITHIN THE, THE PROPERTY, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE HOMEOWNER, UH, PROPERTY. SO, WELL, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. I HAVE A SUGGESTION SINCE THERE WAS THE COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS, UH, SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING THE ADDITION OF THESE GARAGE, THESE CARPORTS WITH THE GARAGE DOORS. UM, I SUGGEST ONE RECOMMENDATION MIGHT BE TO, UM, AS THE APPLICANT PULL THIS FROM, UH, CONSIDERATION TODAY, COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION WITH AN ELEVATION AND MAYBE A THREE D VIEW FROM THE SOUTHEAST LOOKING, UH, OBLIQUELY, UH, DOWN THE FACADE OR THE LINE OF THIS, THESE HOUSES AND THE GARAGES SO THAT, UM, EVERYONE HAS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. YOU WILLING TO I, UM, YES, SIR. YEAH, WE CAN, WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. AND, UM, WE WILL, UH, WE CAN PULL IT TODAY, UM, AND WE WILL COME BACK, UH, AND SCHEDULE IN THE MEANTIME A D R C SO WE CAN, UM, HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE BEFORE IT'S, UH, PUT IN THE AGENDA. AGAIN, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, THIS IS JUST A PROCEDURAL QUESTION FOR ALMA. I GUESS IF, IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT WITHDRAWING, DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR THE CONTINUANCE? I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT DID WITHDRAW. I, I JUST HEARD THAT THEY WOULD COME BACK. UM, IS RICARDO STILL ON THE LINE? YES. UM, WE, WE, I BELIEVE IT WAS, UH, TO PULL BACK OR CONTINUE. I, I, YOU KNOW, WE CAN CONTINUE, UH, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. IT'S JUST SO WE DON'T HAVE TO REAPPLY. UM, AND WE WILL, UH, GO TO A D R C WHEN WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE READY. WE CAN JUST, UM, REACH OUT TO THE, UM, TO THE CASE MANAGER AND SAY, AND SEE IF [00:45:01] WE CAN, UM, BE ON THE AGENDA AGAIN. MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'M ASK US TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS, UH, ITEM. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION FOR CONTINUING THE ITEM? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER GIBBS, MR. VELAZQUEZ, THIS IS AMAL LOZANO. JUST TO CLARIFY, ARE YOU ASKING TO REFER TO THE D R C? UM, I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE THAT, THAT, THE QUESTION IS HOW THEY'RE DOING IT. I THINK THE QUESTION IS THERE, WHAT, THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SEE THE HOLISTIC ASPECT AND IN THAT PERIOD THEY CAN GET WITH THE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND BECAUSE I, I THINK IT WAS VERY CLOSE TO EITHER A YES OR A NO HERE. IT'S, IT'S JUST, THERE'S, THERE, THERE WE, WE, WE WOULD PREFER, OR MY HEARING THERE IS THAT, THAT THERE'S A, A GOOD MAJORITY THAT PREFERS TO SEE NOT JUST THE CARPORT, BUT WHAT IT'S RELATIONSHIP IS TO THE OVERALL, INCLUDING THE THREE D IMAGE THAT CHAIRMAN HAS MENTIONING. SO I DON'T THINK THE DRC IS NECESSARY. I THINK IT'S MORE ABOUT, UM, THEM TAKING THE COMMENTS AND COMING BACK, GIVING US SOME MORE FULL PRESENTATION. UM, SO I, I, I WOULD BELIEVE THAT'S ENOUGH, RIGHT? UH, CHAIR, WOULD YOU AGREE, MR. CHAIR, THAT, THAT ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR IS A CONTINUANCE SO THAT YES, YOU HAVE TO REACH AS A MINIMUM? I AS A MINIMUM, I WOULD SAY A CONTINUANCE, BUT IT, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE APPLICANT WHETHER HE WANTS TO REQUEST THE D R C? YES. I, I THINK, I THINK, UH, ALMA, THAT, THAT WOULD BE THE BEST IS THAT WE, WE GO FOR CONTINUANCE AND LET THE DATE BE SET BY WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT WISHES FOR A CONSULTATION. IS THIS FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING? UM, IS THIS CONTINUANCE FOR THE NEXT, UH, UH, LET, LET ASK MR. UH, UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR TIME? I THINK TWO WEEKS IS, IS GOOD. OKAY. FOR THE NEXT, THEN THE NEXT . OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, EMMA. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE TO THE NEXT H D R C. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? GIBB? A SECOND MOTION IN A SECOND. HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ. FERNANDEZ FISH. AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ. AYE. AREOLA? AYE. CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP. AYE. BE AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM [17. 21-2193 Address/Description: De La Garza House; 102 S Laredo HDRC Case No.: 2021-127 Landmark Name: Individual Landmark Historic District Name: Main/Military Plaza Applicant: City of San Antonio Request: Review and Recommendation of Contributing Status to the Main / Military Plaza National Register Historic District, specifically as it relates to the potential relocation of the De La Garza House, 102 S Laredo Street City Council Dist.: 1] 17. UM, I BELIEVE RACHEL HAS THE, UH, OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ON THE LINE FOR QUESTIONS 1 0 2 SOUTH LAREDO. RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE? YES. AND ANN MAGONE IS ON THE LINE. I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ HAD QUESTIONS. UM, WELL, MY, LET SEE HOW TO GO ABOUT THIS. UM, I'M VERY SURPRISED THAT IT'S A CONSENT AGENDA, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, FOR, UH, MOVING, UM, I, UH, HAVE VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THIS. THI THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT HOUSE IN THE SENSE THAT IT, IT, YOU KNOW, IN THE MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, LET'S JUST SAY, UH, IN THE WEST SIDE CREEK'S OVERSIGHT OR, OR THE WEST SIDE CREEK'S, UM, RESTORATIONS, I'M ON THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. UM, THE RELATIONSHIP TO SAN PEDRO CREEK AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD LATO, ALL THE INVESTMENT THAT'S GOING INTO REALLY LIKE STABILIZE, UH, HISTORY AND, AND TO REALLY, UH, UM, UH, UM, SAY THAT, THAT THIS SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO, THIS SIDE OF DOWNTOWN IS VERY IMPORTANT. WELL, SO MUCH HAS BEEN REMOVED. THIS HOUSE GOES BACK TO BEFORE THE UNITED STATES WAS A COUNTRY, LIKE, THERE, THERE'S RECORD THAT SAYS THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN 1775. UM, THE OWNER IS ALSO SOMEHOW RELATED TO, TO, TO THE BANKING MINISTRY THAT SAYS THAT THIS IS THE FAMILY THAT FIRST COINED, FIRST COINED HERE, RIGHT? THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S INCREDIBLE. THERE'S OTHER HISTORY THAT SAYS IT AT THE SIEGE, BEJA, RIGHT? WHEN, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR FAMOUS BATTLES, RIGHT? THAT ONCE THE AREA WAS CAPTURED, THAT BEN MILAM TOOK THIS HOUSE AND CONVERTED IT INTO A HEADQUARTERS FOR THE TIAN ARMY. NOW, THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE MILAM STATUE IS, RIGHT? AND THAT'S A HISTORIC CEMETERY WHERE MANY OF THE OF, OF HEROES WERE REMOVED AND PUT INTO, INTO THAT CEMETERY. UH, AND THE, THE STATUES THERE AND THE RELEVANCE FOR THE STATUE TO THIS BUILDING AND [00:50:01] HOW THIS BUILDING RELATES TO SAN FERNANDO CATHEDRAL, AND THEN TO THE ALAMO, THAT, THAT THIS IS NOT JUST A HOUSE LIKE THE O HENRY HOUSE THAT'S BEEN MOVING AROUND ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND IT'S WHERE THE O HENRY HOUSE IS, WHEREVER YOU SAY IT IS, RIGHT? BUT THE REALITY IS IT'S A FACSIMILE. THIS IS THE REAL DEAL. AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT THE DEMOLITION OF THE JAIL DOWNTOWN. AND, AND THAT THAT JAIL, ALONG WITH SO MANY OTHER THINGS ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF URBAN RENEWAL THAT REALLY DEMOLISHED LATO. THAT IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART OF THAT WEST SIDE HISTORY, THAT EVEN UP IN THE 1920S, THIS HOUSE IS RECORDED AS A BROTHEL, RIGHT? WHEN LATO OR THAT AREA BECAME REALLY MUCH, MUCH, UH, SYNONYMOUS WITH THE RED LIGHT, WITH WHAT IS A CLASSIC RED LIGHT DISTRICT THAT YOU'D FIND IN CHICAGO OR OTHER PLACES. UH, SO, SO YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, IT'S STAYING IN THAT FAMILY FOR, YOU KNOW, ALL THE WAY UP INTO THE, THE 18 HUNDREDS. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF YOU LOOK AT WHEN THE CANARY ISLANDERS ARRIVED, RIGHT? WHEN EVERYTHING STARTS GETTING SPANISH COLONIZED, RIGHT? YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT 10 YEARS. NOT EVEN THAT. SO THE RELATIONSHIP TO THIS HOUSE, AND I'M NOT GONNA SAY THE DISCOVERY OF SAN ANTONIO, 'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY SAN ANTONIO WAS ALREADY HERE, BUT, BUT THE, THE, THE, THE SPANISH COLONIAL SETTLEMENT, THAT AND, AND THE FACT THAT WE'VE ALREADY ENABLED THIS KIND OF DEMOLITION OF THE PLAZA DE . HOW MUCH MORE ARE WE, ARE WE, UH, UH, WILLING TO SAY, UH, IS INCIDENTAL NOW REALLY IMPORTANT? YOU KNOW, THE STATE OF TEXAS JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, COMPLETED THEIR RESTORATION SOME YEARS BACK OF THE, OF THE, UH, OF, OF THE NAVARRO HOUSE, RIGHT? NAVARRO, UH, THIS HOUSE IS RELATED TO THAT. UM, I, I, I KNOW THERE'S A STRING, UH, UH, OF, OF THINGS THAT ARE MISSING PARKING LOTS, RIGHT? UM, BUT, BUT IF SOMEONE'S REALLY, REALLY LIKE WALKING HISTORY, THE RELATIONSHIP TO THIS HOUSE AND THE SPANISH GOVERNOR'S PALACE, THESE ARE BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE, ALL OF THE DESTRUCTION THAT, THAT, THAT HAS REALLY OCCURRED, FOR BETTER, FOR WORSE, WE ARE ONLY LEFT WITH THESE THINGS THAT ARE LIKE TOUCHSTONES, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, OR WHAT ARE THAT GAME THE KIDS PLAY WHERE THEY, THEY LOOK FOR A POKEMON OR WHATEVER, RIGHT? THESE ARE THE REAL ONES, RIGHT? THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE ABLE TO WALK THROUGH HISTORY, TOUCH A BUILDING AND SAY, THIS BUILDING IS RELATED TO THIS THING IN HISTORY. EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE? IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER NO, NO, MR. MR. CHAIR. MY, MY PURPOSE HERE IS TO USE MY FIVE MINUTES TO COMPEL THIS COMMISSION, NOT TO DO ANYTHING ELSE, TO COMPEL THAT, THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE, ACCEPTABLE. THAT, THAT THIS, THAT THIS BUILDING MAY NOT BE A PART OF A, A, A COMPLETE PART OF WHAT MIGHT BE AN ANGLOCENTRIC HISTORY OR A, A A OF A, THE MORE NORTHERN EUROPEAN HISTORY. BUT THE RESPECT TO THAT PART THAT JUST GETS DEMOLISHED. I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S MAYBE PART OF THE SPANISH PART OR PART OF THE MEXICAN PART, THAT, THAT WHY, WHY IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO, TO SEE THIS ONE HOUSE? AND I'LL LEAVE YOU WITH THIS ON THE ROSARIOS PROJECT, THERE'S A HISTORIC PIECE OF LIMESTONE ON THE INSIDE THAT WE FORCED THEM TO BUILD OR, OR NOT FORCED THEM, BUT SAID, LOOK, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THIS RESTAURANT. YOU'RE NOT, TURN THIS THING DOWN. SO THEY BUILT THAT RESTAURANT AROUND THAT THING. SO WHATEVER'S PROPOSED HERE, IT HAS THE SAME OBLIGATION, OR AT LEAST THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO FIGURE OUT, THANK YOU VERY, THIS HISTORIC PIECE OF, OF HISTORY THAT IS RELATED TO ALL OF US, THAT IT ABSOLUTELY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TERMS. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS COMMISSIONER, THANK, I THINK, I THINK COMMISSIONER VOSQUEZ HAS MADE A VERY COMPELLING ARGUMENT THAT THIS CASE DESERVES A LOT MORE STUDY. AND I WOULD MOVE THAT IT, UH, BE DEFERRED TO A D R C HEARING TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE ISSUES IN MORE DETAIL, BECAUSE I THINK HIS, HE, HE MAKES A VERY COMPELLING ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS THE REAL DEAL. IT'S ON ITS ORIGINAL SITE. IT IS A, A SUPERB EXAMPLE OF, OF, UH, COLONIAL ARCHITECTURE, UM, AND HAS WITNESSED A LOT OF HISTORY. SO I AM TOTALLY CONCUR WITH WHAT HE'S SAYING AND LIE FOR A D R C HERE. I'LL SECOND, I, WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO D R C. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP, JUST ALSO FOR, IN THE INTENT OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE D R C, THIS IS NOT, UH, APPROVING THE RELOCATION. WE ARE APPROVING A CONTRIBUTING STATUS THAT CAN BE FORWARDED AS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE STATE BOARD AND THAT CONTRIBUTING STATE. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING? I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S RIGHT. AND I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO, UM, UH, DEFER TO THE, UM, THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IF THEY [00:55:01] HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR LIKE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. BUT WHAT IS TODAY IS NOT THE RELOCATION. UM, THIS IS SORT OF HYPOTHETICAL, BUT MORE, MORE PROCEDURAL THAN ANYTHING. BUT IT'S A QUESTION OF WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS COMMISSION REGARDING CONTRIBUTING STATUS WHERE RELOCATION TO HAPPEN? UH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, UH, WHAT THE ISSUE IS, AND I STILL THINK IT REQUIRES SOME MORE DIALOGUE AND, AND TO, TO MY SECOND, UH, THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. TO ME, THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE. SO, UH, I, I THINK THAT THAT HAS SOME BEARING ON, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE'RE CONSIDERING MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU. UM, MS. MAGONE, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? UM, YES, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, ACTUALLY KIND OF TRY TO CLARIFY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. UM, THIS IS A HUGE PROJECT THAT TAKES UP THE ENTIRE BLOCK, WHICH INCLUDES THE CONTINENTAL HOTEL, AND IT INCLUDES THE ARANA BUILDING. UM, THE, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS STILL THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. UM, AND THIS IS, WE ARE IN A DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD FOR A LARGE PROJECT THAT WOULD HAPPEN THERE. UM, THE, THE DE LA GARZA HOUSE AND THE IANA BUILDING ARE OWNED BY, UM, MY CLIENTS WESTERN URBAN, BUT THIS IS PART OF A LARGER THING. AND AS THEY DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, UM, WE HAVE BEEN TO THE D R C, UM, WE WENT TO THE TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION, WE BEEN TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. AND FROM THAT, UM, WE HAVE LEARNED, UM, UH, UH, WE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE BUILDING. UM, I, I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED TO HEAR WHERE SOME OF THAT HISTORY IS COMING FROM THAT THE COMMISSIONER WAS TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY FOUND THAT HISTORY. I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW, WE THINK THE BUILDING'S MORE LIKE 1850, UM, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE TO ARGUE TODAY. UM, WHAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS FIGURE OUT THE FINANCES FOR THIS BIG PROJECT AND WHAT ARE THE PROPER HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UM, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO TO OBTAIN HISTORIC TAX CREDITS. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP AS WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE WAS, COULD THE DELEGATE GARZA HOUSE BE MOVED AND COULD THE APPLICANT, THE OWNER STILL GET TAX CREDITS? THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO, YOU CAN'T MOVE A BUILDING AND HAVE IT LOSE ITS CONTRIBUTING STATUS AND STILL GET TAX CREDITS. BUT WAIT, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE NATIONAL REGISTER PRO, UH, BUILDINGS ARE MOVED, NOT ALL THE TIME. THAT'S NOT THE FIRST CHOICE, BUT THEY'RE MOVED AND THERE'S REGULATIONS ABOUT HOW TO MOVE THEM. AND ONE OF THE THINGS CRITERIA YOU HAVE TO MEET IS, DOES, DOES THE BUILDING AS IT CURRENTLY STAND, HAVE INTEGRITY OF SIGHT AND INTEGRITY OF CONTEXT? WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH BOTH THE T H C AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, AND THEY LOOK AT THIS BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE OF A PARKING LOT AND SAID, IT SEEMS TO LACK INTEGRITY OF SIGHT, INTEGRITY OF CONTEXT. AND IF YOU MOVE THE BUILDING 30 FEET ON THE SAME LOT, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD LOSE THE, ITS HISTORIC CONTEXT. SO THEN THE QUESTION IS, THAT'S THEIR OPINION TO MOVE FORWARD IN A COMPLICATED FINANCIAL PROJECT. THE OWNERS NEED MORE OF A SAY IN THAT, AND THEY NEED A HARDER ANSWER. YES, NO, YOU KNOW, CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE FINANCIALS? AND THE ONLY WAY TO GET THAT HARD ANSWER IS TO GO TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER AND ASK THE QUESTION, IF THIS BUILDING MOVED 30 FEET, WOULD IT STILL BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT? AND THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION THAT'S BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF REVIEW AT THEIR NEXT MEETING. PART OF THE STATE BOARD OF REVIEW IS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT HAPPENS IN SAN ANTONIO IS AT THE H D R C. SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY HERE TODAY IS TO GET YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT SO THAT WE CAN PRESENT IT IN ITS FULL, WHATEVER YOU WANNA SAY TO THE STATE BOARD OF REVIEW WHEN THEY MEET AT THEIR NEXT MEETING. SO, AS PART OF THE PROCESS, THE MAYORS ALSO GETS TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE STATE BOARD OF REVIEW. SO I KNOW THERE'S THE IMPLICATION THAT WE'RE GONNA SAY, WE'RE GONNA GET THIS, WE'RE GONNA MOVE THE HOUSE, AND YOU WON'T HAVE ANOTHER [01:00:01] SAY, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS PUT TOGETHER THIS WHOLE PACKAGE TO SAY, IF WE MOVE IT, DOES IT STILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISTRICT? AND THAT'S REALLY ALL WE'RE ASKING, UM, TODAY. SO I HOPE THAT KIND OF CLARIFIES WHAT, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. UM, YOU KNOW, WE PRESENTED SOME DESIGNS ABOUT WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. UM, THOSE ARE COM WE WILL BE BACK TO THE, UH, THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE HISTORIC DESIGN COMMISSION WITH ALL OF THESE PROJECTS. EVERYTHING YOU'RE GONNA SEE. UM, BUT MY CLIENT DOESN'T ACTUALLY LIKE THE PROJECTS FILL IN ITS DUE DILIGENT PERIOD. SO THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY. UM, I THINK THIS BUILDING'S PRECIOUS TOO. I, YOU KNOW, I CALLED KAY HINES, UM, WHEN I WAS WORKING ON THE MAIN AND MILITARY PLAZA, HISTORIC DISTRICT. 'CAUSE I SAW THE, THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE RIVER, LIKE DIGGING A TRENCH BESIDE IT. UM, I KNOW IT'S AN IMPORTANT SITE. THE QUESTION IS, CAN WE MOVE IT 30 FEET AND WOULD IT COMPLETELY LOSE ITS INTEGRITY? OUR, MY CLIENT REALLY WANTS TO RESTORE THIS BUILDING. UM, AND, UH, AND HAPPY TO DO IT. HONOR IT, HONOR THE HERITAGE OF IT. AND, UM, IF YOU LOOKED AT THE SAND BOARDS THAT WERE IN YOUR PACKET, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE A LOT OF HOUSES AROUND HERE, UM, YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE 18 HUNDREDS. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS ONE JUST GOT A LITTLE BURIED AND FORGOTTEN, AND WE'RE LUCKY THAT IT DID. UM, AND WE WANNA, WE WANNA HONOR THAT AND PRESERVE IT, AND WE THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER, UM, IN A CONTEXT. UM, AND WE CAN GIVE IT THAT CONTEXT. SO I, I, I JUST REALLY WANNA ASSURE YOU THAT WE DO REALLY APPRECIATE EARLY SAN ANTONIO HISTORY AND THE EARLY PEOPLE THAT WERE HERE, BUT WE'RE REALLY JUST ASKING, CAN WE MOVE IT 30 FEET? WOULD YOU, AS A BODY STILL CONSIDER IT CONTRIBUTING TO THE MAIN AND MILITARY PLAZA DISTRICT? OR IF WE MOVE IT, WOULD YOU SAY NO, IT HAS NO LONGER ANY CONTRIBUTING SIGNIFICANCE TO THE DISTRICT? THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF HOW I UNDERSTOOD THIS REQUEST. THIS ISN'T A REQUEST FOR THE RELOCATION. THIS IS IT. IF IT WERE TO BE RELOCATED, WOULD THIS COMMISSION SAY IT NO LONGER RETAINS, UH, CONTRIBUTING STATUS TO THE DISTRICT? AND I, I THINK THAT ANSWER IS A PRETTY EASY ANSWER. IT WERE MOVED, OF COURSE. IT WOULD BE RE IT WOULD RETAIN, UH, THAT CONTRIBUTING STATUS FOR ME. I THINK, I THINK STAFF'S, STAFF'S POSITION ON HERE IN A RECOMMENDATION MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. AND I SUPPORT STAFF'S, UH, POSITION HERE. I, I'M NOT, I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT, THAT THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION NEEDS A D R C. NOW, A RELOCATION, UH, REQUEST I CERTAINLY THINK WOULD NEED, UH, EXTENDED CONVERSATION. WELL, AND, UH, MS. MCLOAN, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. UM, IF WE WENT TO A D R C SO THAT MORE COMMISSIONERS COULD SPEND MORE TIME WITH THEIR, UH, THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO YOUR TIMELINE? GOING BACK TO THE STATE FOR REVIEW? UM, OUR, OUR APPLICATIONS ARE, ARE DUE APRIL 1ST. UM, SO I WOULD, WE WOULD, UM, HAVE TO HAVE THEM. UM, I, I HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, JUST HAVING THE, THE CON THE, THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS REALLY WHAT'S IMPORTANT. UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU'LL HAVE TO WRITE A LETTER SUMMARIZING WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS THINK. UM, AND I HAVE TO HAVE THAT TURNED IN BY APRIL 1ST, MR. CHAIR, UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO, TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, UH, HAVE SOME COMMENTS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD, HOWEVER THAT'S DONE. I, I, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S PROJECTS LIKE THESE THAT REALLY TOUCH A ISSUE OF EQUITY AND, AND, AND INTENT. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A, A, UM, A REAL LIVE ARTIFACT THAT'S EQUAL TO DIGGING UP A BONE IN FRONT OF THE ALAMO. AND OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FROM MY PART, I CAN SEE WHAT THE CITY'S ATTITUDE IS JUST FROM THAT CASE OVER THERE. SO IT'S NOT A SHOCK TO ME THAT, THAT THERE'S A RATIONALE FROM PEOPLE WHO WANNA GET THEIR PROJECT DONE. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS LITTLE HOUSE IS A MOUNTAIN OF HISTORY AND, UM, AND IT RELATES TO SOMEONE ELSE'S HISTORY. SO IT DEPENDS ON, ON, ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. BECAUSE EVEN THE MENTION OF MAINE PLAZA AND THE DESTRUCTION OF ITS, OF, OF ITS HISTORIC INTEGRITY [01:05:01] THAT HAS BEEN DESTROYED, WAITS FOR THE FUTURE TO COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE DESTROYED SOMETHING. WE HAVE TO PUT IT BACK BECAUSE WHAT'S THERE, THERE IS NO, THERE IS NO, THERE IS NO HISTORY THERE RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD KNOW. SO IT DOES, I, I DO BELIEVE, I DO IMPLORE THE APPLICANT TO, TO, UH, UNDERSTAND THE ARCHITECTURAL GENIUS THAT IT'S PROBABLY NECESSARY TO, TO, UH, UH, COME UP WITH A PROJECT THAT CAN RESPECT WHAT THIS MEANS TO PEOPLE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW, RIGHT WHERE IT IS. UH, BECAUSE, BECAUSE 30 FEET, YOU MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR IT NOT LOSING ITS INTEGRITY 30 FEET. BUT I COULD EQUALLY MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO MOVE IT 30 FEET? SO, SO IT DOES HAVE A SENSE OF A A OF A BUREAU. BUREAUCRATIC BAIT AND SWITCH. 30 FEET IS 30 FEET, RIGHT? THERE IT IS. RIGHT. WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO MOVE IT 30 FEET? SO I I, I, I CONCUR WITH THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE. AND, AND I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT THIS. AND THIS HAS COME BEFORE. SO AT LEAST I THINK IT BECAME BEFORE WITH THE D R C AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT, THAT, THAT THE HOUSE IS NOT AN, UH, YOU KNOW, AN AN OBJECTIVE, BUT IT, IT JUST NEED TO BE, 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A BUNCH OF BUILDINGS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE BUILDING THAT YOU HAVE TO PUT IN CONTEXT WHY EVERYTHING IS NOT THERE ANYMORE. LIKE, LIKE MS. MAGONE MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS ALL THESE, THEY, THEY WERE GONE. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A PERIOD WHEN, WHEN THE GOVERNMENTS, CITIES ALL OVER THE NATION WERE TRYING TO BRING PEOPLE BACK INTO THE INNER CITIES. AND BY THAT, IT WAS IN A RACIAL CONTEXT OF REDEVELOPMENT AND REINVESTMENT IN THE INNER CITY. SO URBAN RENEWAL TORE DOWN EVERYTHING THERE, THE THEATER, EVERYTHING. AND IT TOOK HARDCORE PEOPLE, LIKE YOU COULD SEE, LIKE THE CORTEZ FAMILY IN THAT AREA TO MANAGE AND MAKE SURE THAT THE MARKET SQUARE WAS NOT COMPLETELY TORN DOWN. AND NOW THE WEST SIDE CREEK'S RESTORATION PROJECT THAT LOOKS AT SAN PEDRO CREEK, NOT JUST AS A DRAINAGE DITCH, BUT AS, UH, UH, THE, THE, THE RUNNING WATERS OF OUR HISTORY AND THIS BUILDING TIED TO THE JI BEHA. AND TO EVEN QUESTION THAT, THAT HISTORY IS NOT VALID, IS INSULTING BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S VERY TRANSPARENTLY BEEN RECORDED AND PRINTED INZA AND IN THE EXPRESS NEWS, POSSIBLY EVEN THE SAN ANTONIO LIGHT. SO I, I, I, PLEASE, PLEASE EXCUSE THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE TIME THAT I'M TAKING, BUT SOMETIMES THE, THE LITTLE THINGS OR THE THINGS WORTH FIGHTING FOR MR. CHAIRMAN, UM, I HAVE A MOTION. AND IT WAS THE ATTEMPT OF THAT MOTION, UH, WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE REQUEST WAS TO, TO ACTUALLY HELP THIS MEETING BE A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENT. UM, AND WE'LL QUICKLY LOSING THAT EFFICIENCY. SO I'D ASK THAT THE VOTE BE CALLED, CAN I JUST ONE COMMENT, BECAUSE IF IT GOES TO D R C, THEN THE APPLICANT WILL PROBABLY NOT GO, SO THE CASE WILL PROBABLY BE LOST. UM, IS THAT TRUE FOR, UH, STAFF? LIKE, WOULD THE CHAIRMAN STILL BE ABLE TO SUBMIT A LETTER? IT, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE CHAIR SHOULDN'T BE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION. SO WE REALLY ARE LOOKING FOR AN, AN ACTION FROM THE FULL COMMISSION. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAVE A TENTATIVE COMMISSION MEETING ON THE 31ST. SO A D R C WOULD HAPPEN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. WE WOULD MEET AGAIN ON THE 31ST. WE WOULD TAKE ACTION ON WHETHER WE CONSIDER, WE WOULD CONSIDER THIS RECORD RECOMMENDING CONTRIBUTING STATUS IF THE BILLING SHOULD BE MOVED. AND THE NEXT DAY IS WHEN THIS APPLICATION IS DUE TO THE, UH, T H C. I'M NOT SURE THAT TIMELINE WORKS FOR THE APPLICANT. SO, UM, THE, THE NEXT DRC IS ON THE 23RD, AND THEN IT CAN COME BACK FOR A FINAL DECISION OR A COLLECTIVE MOTION HERE ON THE, ON THE 31ST IF WE'RE HAVING THAT MEETING CORRECT. BUT THEN A LETTER WOULD HAVE TO BE WRITTEN AND IT'D HAVE TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE APPLICATION BY THE NEXT DAY. WELL, UH, PERHAPS A, A, UH, ACTION COMING OUT OF THE D R C IS A DRAFT OF THAT LETTER THAT THEN IS CONSIDERED AS, UH, IT IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE LARGER COMMISSION, UH, FOR A FINAL [01:10:01] DETERMINATION TO TRY TO STREAMLINE THAT. BUT AS I SAID, MY MOTION'S INTENT IS QUICKLY, UH, DWINDLING HERE BECAUSE WE'RE SPENDING MORE TIME ON THIS THAN I THINK WAS, WAS REQUIRED, UH, IN, IN, IN PUBLIC SESSION HERE. UM, WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO D R C. LET'S SEE IF IT PASSES A VOTE. AND IF IT DOES, THEN WE'LL DEAL WITH, UH, GETTING THIS RESOLVED BEFORE THE FIRST MI MR. CHAIR. MY, MY, UH, REAL CONCERN AT THIS MOMENT IS THAT THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HAVING, I BELIEVE, GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT, UH, THERE'S AN END RESULT AND WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT, THAT THAT SUPPOSED END RESULT, SO THAT WE CAN GIVE A LETTER THAT SAYS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GIVING THE IMPRESSION HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BECAUSE, UM, IT SEEMS THAT OUR OBJECTIVE SHOULD BE THAT IF WE NEED MORE TIME OR WE WANNA LOOK AT THIS, THAT THAT'S THE ONLY OBJECTIVE WE SHOULD HAVE. IT'S NOT OUR FAULT THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT BRINGS THIS NOW WHEN THEY NEED A LETTER TOMORROW, IT'S THAT WE, I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN EVEN LIKE CONSIDER, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH US. OKAY. LET'S, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. LET'S TAKE A VOTE IF WE'RE BEING BACKED UP AGAINST, WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. FERNANDEZ. FERNANDEZ, UM, NAY FISH, BBS, NA, . I'M GONNA PASS. ARE YOU ALL DONE? YOU NEED THE SECOND? THE CAN, CAN THAT BE DONE? YEAH, CAN BE DONE. I'M, I'M JUST WAITING TO BE THE LAST ONE TO, I WANT HEAR. UH, I'M AN ABSTAIN. I, I CAN'T, COULDN'T EVEN KEEP UP ANYMORE. SO IF VELAZQUEZ IS NOT AN ABSTAIN, YOU STILL WANT TO VOTE AT THE END? YEAH. YES. OKAY. CARPENTER. AYE. RUB? RUB. CAN YOU REPEAT NAYYY ZER? AYE UH, VELASQUEZ AYE. UM, MOTION FAILS. MOTION FAILS. MAY I HAVE ANOTHER MOTION PLEASE? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UH, GIVEN THAT THIS ISN'T A REQUEST FOR THE RELOCATION, I'M, I, I MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION HERE, UH, THAT, UH, SHOULD THE PRO, SHOULD THE DE LA GARZA HOUSE BE REMOVED, THAT IT WOULD CON, UH, RETAIN ITS CONTRIBUTING STATUS WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS ONE THROUGH THREE. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRUB. I SECOND, THIS IS COMMISSIONER EZ. CAN CLARIFICATION. UH, COMMISSIONER FISH, YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF IT IS MOVED, IT WILL REMAIN ITS HISTORIC STATUS, WILL RETAIN ITS CONTRIBUTING STATUS PROVIDED STIPULATIONS ONE THROUGH THREE ARE MET. THAT LANGUAGE IS ON THE SCREEN NOW. SORRY ABOUT THAT. AND TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE JUST RECOMMENDING THAT STAFF CAN MOVE AHEAD AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION LETTER TO THE APPLICANT. IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE A COMMISSION ACTION LETTER THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED. UM, MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES, SIR. MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ? UM, I, I JUST AN THE OPINION WOULD ASK, UH, CONSIDERATION FROM FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THIS HOUSE WITH, WITH PARTICULAR, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, DESCRIPTION IN THIS AREA, THAT THIS HOUSE GOES BACK TO THE ORIGINS OF THE CITY. SO THAT IF YOU LOOK AT WHEN THE CANARY ISLANDERS SETTLED, THIS HOUSE WAS, WAS BUILT RIGHT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF YOU HAD A SUN, AND SUN TURNED 10 YEARS OLD. WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THAT, THAT THESE LOCATIONS ARE, ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE ARCHITECTURE ITSELF. I MEAN, YOU CAN GO LOOK IN MEXICO CITY WHEN THEY UNCOVERED THE TEMPO MAOA RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF, OF, OF, UH, OF A, UH, UM, A HUSTLE AND BUSTLE THAT THEY DIDN'T SAY, HEY, LET'S DIG THIS THING UP AND MOVE IT. IT'S THERE AND IT'S THERE AND IT'S FOUND, UH, CONDITIONING OR THE FOUNTAINS IN . SO WHEN WE LOOK AT TEXAS AND THE UNITED STATES AND WE SEE HOW WE TREAT, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE A KIND OF A, [01:15:01] WE COULD CALL A A, A MORE CONTINENTAL REALITY. THIS HOUSE IS PART OF THAT CONTINENTAL REALITY, NOT PART OF THE UNITED STATES OR PART OF THE TEXAS HISTORY NECESSARILY UNTIL, UNTIL BEN MILAM, UH, UH, GETS AHOLD OF HER UNTIL THE . BUT, BUT WHAT'S LEFT FROM THE SPANISH COLONIAL PERIOD AND THAT MOVING IT IS REALLY TREATING IT LIKE IT'S AN ACCESSORY THAT HAS TO BE KEPT BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT AND YOU CAN MOVE IT 30 FEET AND IT'S STILL ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT OR WHATEVER. JUST LIKE THE OLD HENRY HOUSE THAT WAS, I DON'T KNOW, ON S PREA, AND THEN IT MOVED TO THE LONE STAR AND THEN IT GOT MOVED WHERE IT IS. I WAS WALKING BACK AND FORTH TO CHURCH EVERY DAY TO WATCH THEM REBUILD THE OLD HENRY HOUSE AND PUT IT RIGHT THERE WHERE IT WASN'T, IT'S A LIE, BUT IT PROBABLY HAS ITS ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. RIGHT. WELL, THIS ONE, WELL, THANK YOU FOR THIS ONE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT. THIS ONE IS WHERE IT WAS, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS THE REAL DEAL. THIS IS THE REAL DEAL. YES, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MR. CHAIRMAN. MS. COMMISSION, CARMAN, DID THIS COME TO THE COMMISSION? THIS WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION. MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF THEY REQUEST TO MOVE IT, IT'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. IS THAT CORRECT, COREY? YES. YES. BUT, BUT IT'S, BUT IT'S MAKING A STATE OF APPROPRIATENESS RIGHT? FOR A LETTER THAT SAYS THAT MOVING IT IS EVEN, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING, I'M TALKING ABOUT MOVING IT, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER IT COMES BACK FOR HOW FAR, LIKE THE SENATE HALF. RIGHT. WASN'T THE SENATE TYPE ABOUT POSITIONING? IT WENT TO THE STATE OF TEXAS AND IT FAILED. I MEAN, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU, SIR. MAY THANK YOU, SIR. MAY WE GET OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE? YEAH. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER HERE. UM, SO I CAN SUPPORT THAT MOTION BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THIS IS A, A PROCEDURAL PROCESS THAT THE APPLICANT IS GOING THROUGH, BUT KNOWING THAT AT A FUTURE DATE WHEN THIS PROJECT COMES BEFORE US, THERE'S GONNA HAVE TO BE REALLY COMPELLING REASON AS TO WHY IT HAS TO BE MOVED FOR THE VERY REASONS THAT, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ HAS, HAS MENTIONED. SO I CAN SUPPORT THIS UNDERSTANDING, PARTICULARLY THAT THE T H C IS A QUARTERLY EVENT. UH, THERE ARE MEETINGS, UH, HAPPEN A QUARTERLY, UH, EVERY QUARTER. AND SO IF THEY DO MISS THIS WINDOW, IT COULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT DELAY. AND THOUGH I UNDERSTAND, UH, THE COMMISSIONER'S COMMENT ABOUT IT'S THEIR PROJECT SCHEDULE, THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR, FOR FORESEEING THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. I I THINK THAT THIS IS NOT SAYING THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO MOVE IT, IT'S SAYING THAT IT WOULD RETAIN ITS HISTORIC STATUS, UH, PARTICULARLY FOR, UM, IT'S, ITS CONTRIBUTING STATUS PARTICULARLY FOR, UH, FUTURE, UH, TAX CREDIT BENEFIT TO, TO THE PROJECT. SO, UM, YEAH, I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF MOVING IT UNLESS THERE IS A REALLY COMPELLING REASON. BUT THE, UH, APPLICANT HASN'T MADE THAT ARGUMENT YET IN MY MIND. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS? MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS? GIBBS, CAN YOU REPEAT PLEASE? AYE. VELASQUEZ ME AREOLA. AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. RUBE. AYE. THATOR. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. UH, THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 19. UM, STEPH, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? LET'S MAKE SURE SHE'S UNMUTED. STEPH, ARE YOU THERE? WE CAN HEAR YOU. WE CAN HEAR YOU. WE'RE HERE. WE'RE HERE. OKAY. OKAY. STEPH WILL READ THE CASE TO THE RECORD AND THEN WE'LL START. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER [19. 21-2345 Address/Description: 722 S ST MARYS ST, 519 S PRESA ST, 728 S ST MARYS ST, 732 S ST MARYS ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-507 Landmark Name: Individual Landmark Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: Andrew Douglas/Douglas Architects Request: Construction of a multistory commercial structure, relocation of historic structure, site modifications City Council Dist.: 1] 19, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2020 DASH 5 0 7. ADDRESS, 7 22 7 32 SOUTH ST. MARY STREET AND FIVE 19 SOUTH PRE PREA STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FINAL APPROVAL TO ONE CONSTRUCT, A NEW TOOL, TWO STORAGE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE. THE EXISTING ROOM OF ASIR 1860 KALICHI STRUCTURE WILL BE PRESERVED IN SITU AND WILL BECOME A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PORTION OF THE NEW STRUCTURE. A REMAINING WALL WE DISMANTLED AND ITS MATERIALS INCORPORATED INTO AN INTERIOR WALL FEATURE TO RELOCATE THE FL DIXON HOUSE, LOCATED AT FIVE 19 SOUTH PRESA TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND THREE, PERFORM VARIOUS SITE MODIFICATIONS TO INCLUDE THE CREATION OF A NEW SURFACE PARKING LOT, RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS, FENCING, AND LANDSCAPING STAFF RECOMMENDS FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST ITEMS BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH U WITH THE FOLLOWING [01:20:01] STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE APPLICANT INCREASES THE SETBACK OF THE PROPOSED FENCING TO ACCOMMODATE MORE LANDSCAPING. AS NOTED IN FINDING R, A FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A FINAL DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED ART MURAL TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A C. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AS NOTED IN FINDING O THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A NEW APPLICATION TO THE HISTORIC AND DESIGNING REVIEW COMMISSION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PLAN AS NOTED IN BIND SS FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT ADHERE TO THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION AND CONTINGENCY PLAN, AS WELL AS THE SUBMITTED REUSE STRATEGY FOR THE CALICHE WALL AND SUBMITS ANY UPDATES, STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH MODIFICATIONS IF APPLICABLE. AND FIVE ARCHEOLOGY AN ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED. THE PROJECT SHALL, SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING ARCHEOLOGY AS APPLICABLE. AND I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT TEAM ON THE LINE. UM, I WANNA FIRST THANK THE COMMISSION FOR DETENTION AND EFFORTS TO HELP ME CONTINUE MY OVER 30 YEAR LOVE AFFAIR WITH THE SOUTH TOWN NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S BEEN A MAJOR PART OF MY SUCCESS, ROSARIOS, WHEN I STARTED MY PLAN FOR A NEW HOME FOR ROSARIOS, NEVER IN MY WILDEST IMAGINATION DID I THINK I WOULD BE THE CENTER OF A SOCIAL MEDIA WAR. I APPLIED TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR FOR THREE DECADES AND HAVE WORKED WITH THIS COMMISSION SINCE SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR TO CREATE A NEW RESTAURANT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. EVERY TIME AN ISSUE WAS RAISED, WE OFFERED A SOLUTION, PRESERVING THE LIMESTONE WALL, PROVIDING MORE ONSITE PARKING, RESTORING TWO BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC HOMES, IMPROVING THE STREETSCAPE, ADDRESSING NOISE AND REDUCING MASSING. NOW ON THE EVE OF APPROVAL, A NEW ISSUE WAS RAISED THAT I DIDN'T EVEN CREATE. A NEIGHBOR WANTS ME TO SOLVE HIS PROBLEM. HIS BUILDING EXTENDS TO THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE WITH NO SETBACK, BUT I STILL OFFERED NEW SOLUTIONS, A MURAL WALL SETBACK, DRAINAGE ACCESS WAVE. MY NEIGHBOR COULD SOLVE HIS OWN PROBLEM, NONE OF WHICH WERE ACCEPTED. I HAVE WORKED IN GOOD FAITH TO RESOLVE ALL ISSUES. WE COLLECTIVELY HAVE SOLVED ALL ISSUES. NOW I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. NOW, WE'D LIKE TO TO GO THROUGH THE H D R C RECOMMENDATION, AND THIS IS JEREMY HOT WITH DOUGLAS ARCHITECT AND THE H D R C RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. SO I'D JUST LIKE TO GO THROUGH HOW WE ADDRESS EACH ITEM. AND SO PERTAINING TO DEMOLITION ITEM ONE WAS A LANDMARK DESIGNATION REQUEST, AND WE DID SUBMIT THAT WITH OUR PACKAGE, AND THAT WAS DONE BY POST OAK PRESERVATION SOLUTIONS. ITEM TWO, THE CALICHE STRUCTURE ON PAGE YOU, IF YOU GUYS CAN GO TO PAGE 33, WHICH IS OUR ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLAN. ITEM TWO IS THE CALICHE STRUCTURE TO BE UTILIZED AS A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE SPACE. AND WE'RE CALLING THAT THE KIVA ROOM. AND WE'RE GONNA BE, IT'S PROGRAMMED FOR SMALL DINING PARTIES AND A TASTING ROOM, AND IT'S ACCESSIBLE FROM THE MAIN DINING SPACE THROUGH A VESTI UH, VESTIBULE. AND THEN ON THE ITEM THREE, ON PAGE 18, WE SUBMITTED A COMPREHENSIVE CONTINGENCY PLAN ALONG WITH A PRESERVATION PLAN DONE BY POST PRESERVATION SOLUTION. NOW ON THE BUILDING DESIGN, BACK TO PAGE 33, WHICH IS OUR ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLAN ON REDUCING THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE ELEVATOR TOWER. WE, UH, WE RELOCATED THE ELEVATOR FROM THE SOUTH ELEVATION FACING THE GARDEN HOUSE TO THE EAST ELEVATION, FACING SOUTH PRESTA STREET TO BETTER INTEGRATE WITH BUILDING MASSING. AND THEN ITEM TWO, WE, UH, WE INCORPORATED FENESTRATION PATTERNS OF THE SELF PRICE OF FACADE TO REDUCE THE VISUAL MASS. AND WHAT WE DID THERE WAS WE INCORPORATED VARIOUS STEPPING OF THE, UH, FACADE IN AND OUT. WE VARIED THE PARAPET LINES AND THEN ALSO THE ELEVATOR TOWER IS NOW INTEGRATED WITH THE ROOF TERRACE, ALONG WITH THE STAIR AND GREEN SCREEN. NOW, ON PAGE 36 IS OUR ELEVATION SHEET TO TALK ABOUT THE ROOF TERRACE CANOPY. THE EXTENSION OF THE ROOF TERRACE CANOPY WAS BEYOND THE FACE OF THE BUILDING. WE ELIMINATED THAT, AND THE CANOPY NOW LINES WITH THE FACE OF THE BUILDING BELOW. NOW BACK TO PAGE 33, [01:25:01] THE ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLAN TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE REPURPOSED THE HISTORIC STONEWALL, UH, CALICHE. THE MATERIAL FOR THIS WALL APPROVED BY H D R C TO BE REPURPOSED IS NOW LOCATED AS THE BACKDROP WALL FOR THE RESTAURANT AT THE NORTH END IN FLEX DINING 1 0 5. AND FINALLY, FOR SITE DESIGN, PAGE 32, WE DID SUBMIT A COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN AND WE DID INCREASE LANDSCAPING. AND AS A SCREENING BUFFER ALONG SOUTH PREST STREET, UH, THE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN INDICATES CONTINUOUS LANDSCAPE BEDS ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. AND WE WILL ALSO SUBMIT A, A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT, UH, FOR YOUR GUYS' REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS, MS. CHAIRMAN, AND COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS CRYING. BERNIE, I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR ROSARIOS. UH, I KNOW MANY OF Y'ALL ALREADY KNOW THIS, BUT, UM, UM, MS. LONG STARTED, UH, WORKING IN A RESTAURANT AT AGE 13 AND A FEW YEARS LATER, SHE HAD HER OWN RESTAURANT THAT SHE WAS WORKING FOR. UM, SHE MOVED INTO THE KING WILLIAM LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE EARLY 1990S. AND I THINK IN MANY WAYS CONTRIBUTED TO THE ATTRACTION OF THAT AREA BECAUSE, UH, UH, BY PROVIDING AN OUTSTANDING PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO ENJOY THEMSELVES, UM, SHE'S PROBABLY THE PREMIER LATINA RESTAURATEUR IN THE CITY, UH, HAS DEVELOPED A, A LOYAL CLIENTELE. UH, AND FROM DAY ONE, SHE TOLD DEAN WORKS ON THIS PROJECT THAT WE WERE GONNA DO EVERYTHING WE COULD TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. AND, UH, FOR SEVEN MONTHS WE HAD WORKED DILIGENTLY TO TRY TO RESOLVE EVERY SINGLE ISSUE THAT EITHER OUR NEIGHBORS H P O OR HT R C UH, BOARD HAD. AND WE, WE TRIED TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS FOR EVERY ONE OF THE ISSUES. AND WE THINK WE'VE DONE THAT. UH, HERE AT THE LAST MINUTE, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, UH, WE HAVE, UH, RUN INTO ONE A NEIGHBOR THAT HAS A PROBLEM THAT MS. WONG DID NOT EVEN COST, UH, BUT HAS ASKED THAT WE TRY TO SOLVE IT FOR HER. UM, I THINK AT THIS TIME THAT, UH, SHE'S COMPLIANT WITH EVERY REGULATION, EVERY SETBACK, EVERY ORDINANCE. SHE'S GOT THE SUPPORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS IN THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY AND, AND THE H P O STAFF. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE'RE GONNA ASK FOR YOU TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND WE'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE APPLICANT? DO WE HAVE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS? GO AHEAD, MS. I'M THINK I HEARD. I'M THERE. ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE APPLICANT? NO, NO, NOT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'LL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN WE'LL GET QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION. SO STAFF IS GONNA BE PROVIDING A SUMMARY OF ALL THE COMMENTS RECEIVED TO DATE. UM, AS MS. WONG MENTIONED, THERE WAS A SOCIAL MEDIA WAR AND, AND THAT RESULTED IN ONLINE PETITIONS AS WELL AS CALL FOR VOICEMAILS TO BE SENT TO THE H C R C HOTLINE. UM, SO AS OF NOW, WE HAVE RECEIVED MORE THAN 600 VOICEMAILS. UM, NINE OR 596 OF THOSE WERE RECEIVED BY THIS MORNING'S DEADLINE. UM, AND WE HAVE LISTENED TO EVERYONE, UM, AND TALLY THE SUPPORT. UM, THAT TRACKING SHEET IS AVAILABLE IN YOUR COMMISSIONER REVIEW FOLDER ALONG WITH ANY LETTERS OR COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED SO FAR. UM, SO OF THE VOICEMAILS 375 WERE IN SUPPORT, UM, 217 WERE IN OPPOSITION. UM, THE LETTERS IN YOUR FOLDER, UM, I BELIEVE THERE ARE 18 IN OPPOSITION, AS WELL AS ONE ADDITIONAL LETTER WITH COMMENTS. UM, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY MAVERICK RESTAURANT HAS AN ONLINE PETITION, UM, THAT OPPOSES THE PROJECT. UM, THAT PETITION RESULT IS ALSO IN YOUR FOLDER. UM, IT INCLUDES 2,556 SIGNATURES. UM, WE HAVE THREE LIVE CALLERS, UM, WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, WHOSE COMMENTS WE HAVE NOT COLLECTED YET. SO WE WILL HEAR FROM THEM. UM, SO LET'S GO TO RACHEL FIRST WITH THE CALLER. I HAVE CHERISE ON THE LINE. CHERISE, YOU CAN GO AHEAD. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, I'M CHERISE EGRIN, PRESIDENT OF THE LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE FORMER EL MEDO PROPERTY WAS ZONE I D Z IN 2014. THE L AND A CANNOT AND WILL NOT WEIGH IN ON THAT ZONING, WHICH ALLOWS THE OWNER TO BUILD TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS THE NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES HAVE DONE. BUT L AND A ACKNOWLEDGES THAT LISA WONG AND ROSARIOS HAVE BEEN PART OF THE COMMUNITY FOR MANY YEARS, AND THAT THE MAVERICK HAS BEEN A MUCH EMBRACED NEWCOMER IN THE LOCAL DINING SCENE. IT'S NOT THE ROLE OF THE LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO TAKE SIDES IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN BUSINESS NEIGHBORS IN AN H D R C CASE, OUR COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE MERITS OF THE DESIGN CONSIDERING THE IMPACT OF A PROPOSED STRUCTURE ON THE SURROUNDING AREA AND MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THIS. YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION OUTLINING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE DESIGN OF THE FUTURE ROSARIO'S RESTAURANT. THE POSITION OF THE LEVO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IS NOT [01:30:01] A BINARY ONE. WHILE THE STATEMENT THE L AND A SENT SAYS THE L AND A DOES NOT SUPPORT, NOR DOES THE L AND A OPPOSE THIS PROJECT, IN FACT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WOULD LIKE IT TO MOVE FORWARD. THE HISTORIC AND PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE LEVO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MADE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT SPIRIT. AND EIGHT OF OUR 10 VOTING MEMBERS CONCURRED WITH THEIR SUGGESTIONS. TWO, WERE UNAVAILABLE TO VOTE AND ONE IS A NON-VOTING BUSINESS MEMBER. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE DETAILS OF THE DESIGN WILL CONTINUE TO EVOLVE, AND THE INTENT OF OUR LETTER WAS TO RECORD THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMITTEE REGARDING THAT DESIGN. AGAIN, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION NEITHER OPPOSES NOR SUPPORTS THE SPECIFICS OF THIS PROPOSAL. THANK YOU. UM, COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE WE GO TO OUR NEXT CALLER, I THINK I AM LOOKING AT MY NOTES. I THINK I MISSPOKE. UM, SO WE HAVE CONSOLIDATED ALL THE LETTERS AND WRITTEN COMMENTS. UM, THERE ARE 20 WRITTEN COMMENTS IN SUPPORT AND THEN FOUR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND LETTERS THAT WERE JUST GENERAL COMMENTS. UM, SO LET'S GO TO WE NOW FOR OUR NEXT CALLER. YES, I HAVE ANDY BENAVIDES ON THE LINE. ANDY, GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENT. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE, UH, THANK YOU H D R C CHAIRPERSONS FOR CREATING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO VOICE OUR SUPPORT FOR THE FUTURE ROSARIO'S LOCATION. UM, JUST TO SORT OF PUT MY PLACE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS PROJECT, I AM STILL AN ACTIVE BUSINESS MEMBER IN THE SOUTH TOWN AREA. UH, MY LOCATION ORIGINALLY WAS ON THE SOUTH ALAMO CORRIDOR, OF WHICH AT THE TIME LISA HAD HER FIRST LOCATION, UH, ROSARIO'S. AND I THINK I'M HERE TODAY, UH, NOT NECESSARILY WITH THE FORMALITY OF, OF MAYBE ALL THE TECHNICALITIES THAT GO WITH A NEW DEVELOPMENT, BUT MORE SO, UH, JUST AN EMOTIONAL CONNECTION TO WHAT I HAVE SEEN AND GROWN WITHIN THE SOUTHTOWN CORRIDOR. AN ORIGINAL PARTICIPANT IN THE ORIGINAL SOUTHTOWN ALLIANCE GROUP, WHICH AT THAT TIME INTENTION WAS TO BRING BRI UH, BUSINESS ONTO THE SOUTH ALAMO CORRIDOR. WE WERE ACTIVE IN COLLABORATING AND PARTNERING WITH OUR OTHER NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES IN ORDER TO BRING THAT TO A REALITY OF WHICH TODAY, CURRENTLY 28 YEARS FAST FORWARD IS ACTIVE AND THRIVING, AND WHICH, UH, LISA HAS EMBRACED ALONG THE WAY. SO IT'S A REALLY BEAUTIFUL STORY TO HAVE WATCHED HER GO FROM ONE LOCATION TO ANOTHER AND NOW TO A PERMANENT HOME IN WHAT SHE CONSIDERS SOUTHTOWN AS BEING A HOME WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE SUPPORTIVE OF HER, UH, SUCCESS. I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE AND THAT SHE'S BECOME, UH, I'D SAY THE VICTIM OF WHAT SOCIAL MEDIA HAS REALLY BEEN, UH, HORRIBLE AT ATTACKING ON PER, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY SORT OF GOT OFF TOPIC. IT WASN'T ABOUT, UH, LISA'S SUCCESS. IT WAS ABOUT PERSONAL OPINIONS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HER BUSINESS INTEREST OR WHAT SHE INTENDED TO BRING TO OUR COMMUNITY. MR. AVITA IS, THAT'S YOUR TIME. IF YOU CAN WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE. OKAY. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'D LIKE TO, UH, ASK THAT THE H D R C COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER, UH, MOVING FORWARD WITH APPROVAL FOR, UH, MS. LISA'S PROJECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE LAST CALLER? HOLD ON. EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? EDWARD, DID WE LOSE YOU? I DON'T SEE YOUR LINE ON HERE ANYMORE. THERE YOU ARE. I'VE SENT YOU A REQUEST. THERE YOU ARE. YOU, YOU MAY MAY BE ABLE TO HEAR ME NOW. I HAVE MR. UH, PETE SIG ON THE LINE NOW. MR. SIG, ARE YOU READY? YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. H D R C COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF. MY NAME IS PETE SIG. I REPRESENT MAVERICK RESTAURANT, A THREE YEAR OLD BUSINESS HOUSE AND AN H D R C APPROVED REPURPOSE STRUCTURE THAT HAS BECOME A GATHERING SPOT AT OUR LA BACA AND KING WILLIAM NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE ADVOCATING FOR NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE 'CAUSE WE WANT WHAT IS GOOD FOR ALL OF US IN THIS COMMUNITY, NOT JUST ONE PERSON. WE STAND FOR BUILDING BRIDGES, NOT WALLS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED WITH A PETITION FROM MAVERICK SUPPORTERS WITH OVER 2,500 SIGNATURES IN LESS THAN A WEEK, ASKING ROSARIOS TO CHANGE THEIR DESIGN TO A, A LITTLE BIT [01:35:01] TO SERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SAVE MA MAVERICK'S PATIO SPACE. ROSARIOS IS USING AN I D Z ZONING CHANGE DATED JUNE OF 2014, WHICH HAS AN ATTACHED PLAN SHOWING BUILDINGS OF ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE TOTAL CURRENT PLAN IS NOT REMOTELY ADHERING TO THAT REZONING PERMIT. THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF ROSARIO'S CURRENT THOUSAND SEAT CAPABLE RESTAURANT PLAN WILL BE DRAMATICALLY FELT IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THE 16,000 SQUARE FOOT DESIGN IS MASSIVELY OUT OF SCALE WITH THE SOUTHTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WILL BE THE LARGEST RESTAURANT WITHIN 10 BLOCKS AND ONLY PROVIDE 27 ONSITE PARKING SPACES. WHEN MORE THAN 200 ARE NEEDED FOR AN ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS SCALE, THIS WILL PUSH PARKING OVERFLOW INTO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS TO PROPOSED ROSARIO'S. NORTH WALL ADJACENT TO MARICK HAD WAS 16 FEET, SIX INCHES TALL, BUT ONLY SIX INCHES AWAY FROM OUR BUILDING EDGE. IT WILL SHUT OUT ALMOST ALL LIGHT AND AIR CIRCULATION DESTROYING OUR PATIO AND OUR ADJACENT KITCHEN DINING ROOM, WHICH COMPRISED 50% OF OUR SEATING BROAD REASON COMPROMISE AS WE EXTEND A BRIDGE TO OUR NEIGHBOR AND ASK TO REDUCE THE WALL'S NEGATIVE IMPACT MAVERICK AND ITS RUST. ARCHITECTS HAVE STUDIED THE CURRENT ROSARIO'S LAYOUT AND MET YESTERDAY WITH ROSARIO'S ARCHITECT TO SUGGEST OUR CHANGES IN RESPONSE. ROSARIOS HAS OFFERED US A TOTAL OF 70 SQUARE FEET, SEVEN ZERO OUT OF THEIR PROPOSED 16,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, WHICH IS A NARROW THREE FOOT SETBACK ALONG ONLY HALF THE LENGTH OF MAVERICK'S PATIO, LEAVING HALF OF OUR PATIO IN THE DARK. WE ASKED FOR A MINIMUM THREE FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE ENTIRE PATIO WALL, AND WE'VE ALSO ASKED THAT THE EXTERIOR NORTH WALL OF ROSARIO'S BE FINISHED AT THE SAME LEVEL AS ALL THEIR OTHER WALLS AND NOT AS A BACK ALLEY FINISH. AND FINALLY, THE ROSARIO'S DUMPSTER SPACE ADJACENT TO OUR PATIO IS ENCLOSED WITH A C M U BLOCK WALL. WE HOPE THE COMMISSIONERS CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE LONG-TERM ADVERSE EFFECTS OF ROSARIO'S CURRENT BUILDING PLANS ON MAVERICK AND ALSO HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. WE FURTHER REQUEST TO CONTINUANCE OF THE VOTE SO THAT FURTHER STUDY CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED OR ALTERNATIVE TO THAT, AN OPPOSITIONAL VOTE TO THE PROPOSED PLAN. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL OF OUR CALLERS. THANK YOU. UM, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. CHAIR? UM, I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. UM, UM, I I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, COREY, WHO DO I DIRECT, UH, QUESTIONS TO, EITHER ME OR STEPHANIE. STEPHANIE IS THE CASE MANAGER. OKAY. STEPHANIE, WITH, WITH RESPECT TO, UM, THE PROPERTY AND ITS ALLOWABLE RIGHTS, LIKE UNDER THE I D Z OR WHATEVER, UM, UH, CATEGORY, IT, IT, UH, IT HAS TO OPERATE UNDER, UH, I IS IT, UM, ARE, ARE THE DECISIONS MADE BY H D R C HERE ALREADY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO ZONING OR, OR THEY'RE OPERATING WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT ARE THEIR RIGHTS? SO I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN RESPOND SPECIFICALLY TO PROPERTY RIGHTS IN GENERAL. I THINK THAT'S A REALLY BIG QUESTION, BUT THE ZONING QUESTION I CAN'T ANSWER BECAUSE, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN THOUGH. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN IS SAYING THAT ZONING DEFINES THE PROPERTY, UM, WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE. WE, WE DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS, WE DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING THAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE. UM, THERE WAS A ZONING CASE, UM, WHEN THIS WENT TO I D Z FROM A FEW YEARS AGO THAT WAS REFERENCED, UH, BY THE CALLER, UM, THAT HAD A SITE PLAN. UM, AND SO BASED ON THAT PREVIOUS APPROVAL AND THE ZONING THAT'S IN PLACE, UM, THERE, THIS WOULD LIKELY BE CONSIDERED A, A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THAT ZONING, WHICH IS USUALLY HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY D S D STAFF. UM, AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT PLAN WOULD REQUIRE A REZONING. NOW, ARE THE VARIANCE ARE THE BASE ZONES OF C AND WHAT, WHAT CATEGORY OF C WOULD THEY BE? OR IS IT OVERRIDDEN BY THE I D Z? IT'S JUST I D Z, IT'S JUST I D Z. SO THEN, SO THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE PROPERTY LINES, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AN I D Z, THAT YOU'RE ZERO PROPERTY LINE PROVIDED THAT BOTH SIDES ARE OF THE SAME USE, RIGHT? OR THAT ONE SIDE IS NOT RESIDENTIAL, ARE, ARE, AND THE PROXIMITY PART, ARE THEY OPERATING WITHIN WHAT IS ALLOWABLE FOR THEM WITH LIKE, IN, IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE SHOE WAS ON THE OTHER FOOT [01:40:01] THAT THE OTHER SIDE WOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS? SO I, I GUESS YOU ANSWERED THAT THOUGH, CORY, BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T NEED A VARIANCE, THEN, SO THERE'S, THERE'S DIFFERENT THINGS. I MEAN, I D Z IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ZONING BECAUSE IT DOES INCLUDE SPECIFICS ABOUT, UM, LIKE WHERE THE BUILDINGS CAN GO AND WHERE OPEN SPACE CAN BE. BUT THERE ARE USES TIED TO THAT APPROVAL. AND SO AS LONG AS THE USE IS CONSISTENT AND AS LONG AS THE, THE OPEN SPACE VERSUS, UM, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR THE LOT IS CONSISTENT, THEN, THEN THERE'S NOT A CONFLICT. OKAY. THANK YOU, COREY. I APPRECIATE YOUR CLARIFICATIONS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, AND, UH, PERHAPS IT'S FOR LISA OR THE ARCHITECT. UM, I HEARD, I HEARD HERE THAT THE POSITION, UH, FOR MR. SELIG IS A, UH, A MINIMUM THREE FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE PATIO, WHICH IS THE MID-BLOCK. AND I JUST WANTED TO GET A REACTION TO, TO THAT AS A VIABLE POSSIBILITY. AND IF IT'S NOT A POSSIBILITY, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS THE REASONING WHY THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE? PLEASE? UH, CAN WE GO TO SLIDE 33 OR PAGE 33? UM, I THINK AS WE TALKED, UH, YESTERDAY, UH, WE'RE, THE SITE PLAN FOR THE RESTAURANT IS, IS CONSTRAINT, UH, FROM MAVERICK TO THE KING WILLIAM GARDEN HOUSE. UH, WE MET EARLY WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. WE LOOKED AT SITE DIAGRAMS FOR, UH, DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THE SITE BE ORGANIZED. AND I THINK THE, THE STRONG CONSENSUS, I THINK FOR US AS THE DESIGN TEAM WORKING LISA ALONG WITH COMMISSIONERS, BUT TO REALLY CREATE A RESTAURANT THAT ENGAGES AND STRENGTHENS THE STREETS CAPE OF ST. MARY'S. AND SO, UH, WE'RE BUILDING, UH, AS MAVERICK IS A ZERO LOT LINE BUILDING, WE'RE BUILDING ZERO LOT LINE, UH, FROM MAVERICK TO THE KING WILLIAMS GARDEN HOUSE. UH, AND SO THAT, THAT DIMENSIONAL STRING, AS YOU LOOK AT IT ON THE PLAN HERE, UH, YOU'LL SEE THE KING WILLIAM GARDEN HOUSE. YOU'LL SEE THE COURT SPACE. UH, WE HAVE A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT THAT WERE PULLED BACK IN ORDER TO, UH, HAVE DEFERENCE TO THE KING WILLIAM GARDEN HOUSE, UH, ALSO FOR CIRCULATION NEEDS AND USE OF THE COURT SPACE. SO THAT'S A SET DIMENSION. AND THEN WE HAVE THE MAIN RESTAURANT, WHICH REALLY IS CENTERED AROUND, YOU SEE THE BAR THERE AT THE CORNER, AND THEN EITHER SIDE OF THAT ON THE NORTH AND TO THE, INTO THE, UH, PLAN OR, OR THE EAST. UH, THOSE TWO WINGS ARE THE MAIN DINING, UH, AS YOU MOVE BACK TOWARDS THE NORTH TOWARDS MAVERICK, THAT BECOMES MORE FLEX IRON. AND THAT'LL BE USED ON WEEKENDS AND, UH, HEAVY EVENTS. BUT TYPICALLY, MOST OF THE ENERGY IS GONNA BE, UH, DOWN TO THE QUART SPACE IS AT THAT CORNER. BUT THAT DIMENSIONAL WIDTH IS SET FOR THE CALCULATED, UH, SEATING FOR THAT AREA. AND THEN BEYOND THAT, YOU'VE GOT THE KITCHEN. UH, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE, IN THE, UH, EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE KIVA STRUCTURE AND WORK THAT IN, WE HAD TO KIND OF REWORK ALL THE PLANNING, UH, THAT, THAT TOOK UP. IT REALLY HAD A PRETTY BIG IMPACT ON CIRCULATION. UH, AND SO, UH, THAT STRUCTURE TOOK UP 600 PLUS SQUARE FEET, UH, OF AREAS, UH, AND HAVE HAD PRETTY BIG IMPACT. SO THE DIMENSIONAL STRING OF THE KITCHEN AS A, AS A PROFESSIONAL KITCHEN TO SUPPORT THE, THE NEEDS OF THE RESTAURANT, UH, IS, IS ABOUT AS TIGHT AS IT CAN BE. WE'RE RIGHT ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TIMES SPENT ON THE DETAILS OF THE LAYOUT, THAT KITCHEN, AND THEN WE'RE LEFT BEYOND THE KITCHEN, BUT THE RESTROOM AND THE RESTROOMS ARE FAIRLY MODEST, 88 COMPLIANT RESTROOMS. AND THAT, THAT COMPLETES THE DIMENSIONAL STRENGTH. SO REALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE BOXED IN, WE HAVE THAT RUN OF DIMENSIONS TO WORK WITH, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT. SO THERE'S REALLY NOT, UH, MUCH DIMENSIONAL SPACE, UH, TO OFFER, UH, IN THAT DIMENSIONAL STREAM. SO, SO TO BE CLEAR, FROM THE CORD IN THIS IMAGE ON THE SCREEN, UM, A RESPONSE TO THE THREE FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE WIDTH OF THE, UH, THE, THE GAP IN THE BUILDING TO THE NORTH, UM, IS NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE DIMENSIONAL STRINGS THAT YOU SEE HORIZONTALLY THROUGH HERE. SO THREE FEET IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY. YEAH, I MEAN, WE'RE, YEAH. I MEAN, EVERYTHING IS SO TIGHT IN TERMS OF THE OPERATION OF THE KITCHEN, DECEDENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAIN DINING AREA AND, AND THE BATHROOM. THAT'S CORRECT. SO COMMISSIONER, WHEN, GO AHEAD. SO, COMMISSIONER, UM, THIS IS LISA. I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT, UM, UH, WHEN MR. SIG APPROACHED ME ON THIS ISSUE, UM, AND ASKED US TO, TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE DESIGN, UM, THE ONE AREA THAT'S VERY VALUABLE TO [01:45:01] ME, BUT I'M WILLING TO GIVE UP, UM, IN THE SPIRIT OF, UM, WORKING WITH HIM, UM, IS I HAVE SOME STORAGE SPACE. AND AS YOU WELL KNOW, IN A RESTAURANT, STORAGE SPACE IS VERY VALUABLE. UM, I WORK WITH MY ARCHITECTS AND WE SLICED OFF ABOUT THREE FEET, UH, FROM MY STORAGE SPACE, WHICH IS, UH, APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY FEET, ANDREW? ABOUT 20 FEET. MM-HMM. TO ABOUT 20 FEET, UM, AND LENGTH AND THREE FEET AND WIDTH. AND THEN YOU ADD THE HEIGHT OF MY STORAGE ROOM, WHICH IS ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, I THINK 10 OR 11 FEET THROUGH THERE. IT'S A, IT'S A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL GIVE, UM, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO 600, UH, CUBIC FEET. UM, I KNOW TO MOST, IT MIGHT NOT SOUND LIKE MUCH, BUT, UM, I LOOKED AT EVERYTHING AND THAT IT'S A BIG GIVE, AND I AM, UH, WILLING TO DO THAT. UM, IF THE APP, IF, IF THE NEIGHBOR MAVERICK IS WILLING TO ACCEPT IT, WE'VE MET WITH HIM NUMEROUS TIMES. UM, THE ATTITUDE HAS BEEN, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO TO FIX THE PROBLEM? UH, THERE'S NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT I DID NOT CREATE THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM WAS CREATED WHEN THEY DECIDED TO DO AN IMPROVEMENT ON THEIR SIDE YARD, UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY DID NOT OWN THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR. AND THAT ONE DAY, UM, DEVELOPMENT WOULD PROBABLY, UM, BE PART OF THE EQUATION. UM, I ASKED THEM TO PLEASE PULL ROSARIO'S AND MYSELF OUT OF THE EQUATION. HAD I NOT BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, SOMEONE ELSE COULD HAVE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND DEVELOPED, UM, A MUCH DENSER, UM, UH, PROJECT. AND IT'S NOTHING INTENTIONAL. UH, AS ANDREW, UM, DESCRIBED, I HAVE SOME HARD STOPS, UH, ON THE PROPERTY THAT I HAVE TO WORK WITH. UM, THE GARDEN SPACE OR THE GARDEN HOME IS A HARD STOP, UM, THAT GARDEN HOME, UM, ALONG WITH THE GARDEN SPACE NEXT TO IT. UH, AND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THE GARDEN HOME ARE ALL VARIABLES THAT NEED TO BE WORKED INTO THE DESIGN. AND SO, FORTUNATELY OR UNFORTUNATELY, THE PROJECT KIND OF STARTS FROM THE GARDEN HOUSE AND GOES NORTH, UM, BECAUSE OF THAT CONDITION. AND THEN OUR COMMITMENT TO PRESERVING THE KIVA, UM, UH, ALSO CAUSED THE KITCHEN TO GROW IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE WHEN YOU PUT A SQUARE INTO A SPACE, IT JUST, IT, IT CREATES PINCH POINTS IN ALL DIRECTIONS. UM, AND THERE'S SOME, AND I AGREE, THERE ARE A FEW AREAS IN THE KITCHEN THAT LOOK RATHER ROOMY, BUT WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE CIRCULATION THAT I NEED, UH, TO GET MY WEIGHT STAFF FROM POINT A TO POINT B, THE BOXERS, ET CETERA, UM, THAT'S THE TYPE OF CIRCULATION NEEDED IN THIS TYPE OF KITCHEN. AND, UM, AGAIN, MY COMMITMENT TO THE KIVA, UM, REQUIRED ME TO REDESIGN THE KITCHEN TO AFFORD, UM, THE, THE LOCATION OF THE KIVA AND THE SPACE. UM, THANK, THANKS FOR THAT. I APPRECIATE, I APPRECIATE THE INSIGHT THERE. UM, I THINK FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT REALLY IS, I'M REALLY LOOKING AT THIS FROM AN EXTERIOR ISSUE IN TERMS OF FORM SCALE, MASS PATTERN COMPATIBILITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, SO I CAN, I CAN SEE THE DETAIL IN THIS PLAN AND THE DIMENSIONAL CONSTRAINTS HERE. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE PURVIEW OVER THAT IN A WAY THAT WE CAN CONSIDER IT A, IN, IN SEPARATELY FROM SCALE MASS, UH, UH, CONSISTENCY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERN. SO, BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION. AND TO BE CLEAR, YOU MENTIONED THAT, THAT YOU HAD DISCUSSED A THREE FOOT SETBACK AT THE STORAGE ROOMS THAT WE SEE THERE, 1 21, 1 22. BUT THOSE AREN'T, THOSE AREN'T SHOWN, SHOWN HERE. IT'S SHOWN AS, AS WAS SUBMITTED, CORRECT? CORRECT. THANK YOU. UH, AND THE REASON FOR THAT, THE REASON FOR THAT COMMISSIONER IS THAT WE HAD A MEETING LAST NIGHT. [01:50:04] HELLO? I THINK I'M HERE. I THINK I, I UNDERSTAND THE REASON. I JUST, IT WAS MENTIONED, AND I JUST WANTED IT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT IS ON THE SCREEN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, THE ORIGINAL ONE, JUST TO PREVENT ANY CON YES, YOU'RE CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. KNOW, THE OTHER, OTHER OTHER POINT, UH, IF WE COULD GO TO SLIDE 12 OF PAGE 12. UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAVERICK BUILDING, THERE'S A GREAT EXAMPLE NORTH OF THE MAVERICK OF THE SPACE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE, WHICH IS OWNED BY THE SAME LANDOWNER, THAT BUILDING, UH, AND IT IS ABOUT A THREE FOOT TO FOUR FOOT SPACE FOR MECHANICAL SUPPORT. IT'S A PRETTY DREARY SPACE. IT IS REALLY, IN MY MIND, ANTI-URBAN. UH, IT CREATES THIS VOID BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS. UH, LITERALLY THAT'S THE TYPE OF SPACE THAT THEY'RE ASKING US TO PROVIDE FOR THEM. SO I JUST, AS A DESIGNER LOOKING AT IT, I DON'T QUITE GET IT THERE. THERE'S NO WAY THAT THE WAY THE CURRENT, UH, ENVIRONMENT LOOKS WITH THE BUILD OUT OF OUR PROJECT IS GONNA BE ANYTHING LIKE IT USED TO BE. AND THAT'S JUST A FACT OF, OF, OF US, OF US BUILDING, UH, THE NEW PROJECT. SO, UH, I CAN CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT REALITY. AND WHEN THIS IMAGE IS A GREAT IMAGE TO LOOK AT, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NORTH WALL AS PROPOSED. THE DRAWINGS DON'T KIND OF CLEARLY SHOW THE ARTICULATION IN THE BUILDING TO THE NORTH, BUT GENERALLY, YOUR, YOUR FOOTPRINT IS RESPONDING TO THE PATTERN, UH, ESTABLISHED KIND OF THE, THE, THE, THE, THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS KIND OF ORIENTED TOWARDS ST. MARY'S AND KIND OF RUNNING TWO THIRDS. AND THERE IS A PATTERN HERE IN THE MAVERICK WHERE THERE'S A BREAK IN THE FAC. AND TYPICALLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT, AT, AT KIND OF FOOTPRINT PATTERN, OR PARTICULARLY THINGS THAT, THAT GENERATE LONG WALLS THAT AREN'T, AREN'T ENCLOSED AREAS. I MEAN, WE GENERALLY LOOK FOR SOME SORTS OF RESPONSE OR REFLECTION TO A CHANGE IN THE PATTERN THAT MIGHT ACKNOWLEDGE IT. AND, AND WHAT YOU DID, WHAT WAS DESCRIBED AS A, AS A SETBACK IS ONE OF THOSE, ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT BEGINS TO ACKNOWLEDGE A CHANGE IN THE PATTERN. NOW, WHAT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT IS A THROUGH BLOCK EASEMENT TO, TO PRESERVE ACCESS TO VIEWS OR SOMETHING. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS HERE IS GONNA BE DRAMATIC, HAVE A DRAMATIC IMPACT ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE MAVERICK. BUT THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN RESPOND TO, OR THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I CAN ASK DIRECTLY IS HOW DOES THE NORTH WALL RESPOND TO A PATTERN TO THE NORTH HERE? AND WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, IT'S A, AS PROPOSED, IT'S A STRAIGHT WALL THAT GOES FROM ST. MARY'S ON THE LEFT SIDE, ALL THE WAY TO JUST PAST THAT FIRST COLUMN THAT WE SEE FOR THE COVERED DRIVE. AND I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE IN THIS. I REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, YOU AND, UH, LISA WORKING THROUGH THE H C R C COMMENTS, THE STAFF COMMENTS, AND MANY OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND, UM, UH, IN LARGE PART, I AGREE WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS HERE. AND, UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE POINTING OUT THAT ALL THOSE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET. UH, THIS IS A BIT OF AN ISSUE THAT I'M A LITTLE BIT UNCOMFORTABLE WITH TODAY. AND I, I, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS, SO I'LL HAND IT OFF TO ANOTHER COMMISSIONER. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I HAVE A, A A BRIEF QUESTION FOR, UH, THE APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT, UH, REGARDING THE, THE CONFIGURATION OF THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. HAS THAT REALLY SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED FROM, UM, THE SUBMISSION THAT WAS DONE FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL? UH, NO. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, THAT'S THE, UH, IT IS THE SAME BASIC FOOTPRINT AS BEFORE AND IN THE INTERNAL CONFIGURATION, GO AHEAD. WHAT'S THAT? I'M SORRY, I INTERRUPTED YOU. GO AHEAD. I WAS GONNA SAY, WE DID PULL BACK THE RISER ROOM THAT'S ON THE, UH, EAST SIDE ON THE PARKING LOT SIDE ON CRESTA SIDE SLIGHTLY, UH, TO PROVIDE, UH, SOME SPACE FOR THE, TO ALLOW THEM TO, UH, PROVIDE SOME A DRAIN POTENTIAL DRAINAGE EASEMENT. SO WE DID MAKE A MODIFICATION. WE PULLED OFF THE MAVERICK BUILDING, UH, IN THAT ONE LOCATION. AND WHY DID YOU MAKE THAT MODIFICATION? UH, WE MADE IT BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZED THAT THE, THE ROOF SLOPES TOWARDS OUR BUILDING AND THAT THAT WATER IS DRAINED ONTO THE PROPERTY, AND THAT'S GONNA BE THE CORRECT BE CORRECTED. SO WE, WE WENT AHEAD AND PULLED IT AWAY TO GIVE A POTENTIAL AREA FOR THAT WATER TO BE CONVEYED OUT TO PRESS THE STREET. AND YOU WERE ABLE TO MAKE THAT MODIFICATION AT WHAT PHASE OF, OF YOUR DESIGN WORK? UH, WE MADE IT AN EARLY CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT. SAY, SAY THAT AGAIN. UH, IN, IN EARLY CONSTRUCTION [01:55:01] DOCUMENTS. OKAY. AND WOULD YOU SAY WHAT IS BEING, UH, ASKED OF YOU NOW? IS THE INFORMATION THAT'S COMING IN A TIMELY MANNER? I WOULD NOT, YES, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS FOR A REASON, SO THINGS DON'T GET DONE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, AND THIS CERTAINLY HASN'T BEEN A PROJECT THAT'S GONE AT WARP SPEED, AND I FEEL LIKE THERE COULD BEEN A LOT OF BYLAW DONE LONG BEFORE YOU GUYS GOT INTO CDS ABOUT THIS ISSUE. UH, SO I, I FEEL LIKE, UH, YOUR CLIENT AND YOU HAVE BEEN VERY RESPONSIVE TO THIS COMMISSION'S REQUEST AND TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND I FEEL LIKE WHILE THIS I UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS TO THE MAVERICK, I FEEL LIKE THAT THAT COMMENT IS COMING WAY TOO LATE IN THE, IN THE PROCESS. UM, FOR, FOR ME TO HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF SYMPATHY FOR IT IS THIS, UH, HAS GONE THROUGH, UH, A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS. THERE WAS PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY AT THAT TIME, UH, TO MAKE COMMENT BOTH PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY. UM, AND SO WHILE I HAVE, UM, AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPACTS OF THE MAVERICK, I THINK IT WILL DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THAT OUTDOOR DINING. UM, BUT I DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY KILLS IT. I THINK THERE ARE PLENTY OF, UH, EXAMPLES OF, UH, TIGHT URBAN, UH, COURTYARDS THAT ARE USED, UH, FOR OUTDOOR DINING THAT CAN BE VERY DELIGHTFUL. UM, AND HAD THIS COME BEFORE US IN, IN AN EARLIER PHASE DURING THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, I THINK THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A TIME, UH, THAT WE COULD REASONABLY, UH, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT AND ASK YOU ALL TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS. I DON'T THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE REQUEST TO MAKE AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU, UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I THINK YOU HIT IT RIGHT ON. UM, THAT WAS GONNA BE MY, UM, KIND OF POINT OF VIEW TO THIS, LET SAY PUBLIC COMMENTS. UM, AT THE END OF THE DAY, OUR PURVIEW IS THIS PROJECT AS IT IS, AND IF THERE WERE ANY CONFLICTS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, I DO, I DON'T THINK IT'S EVEN OUR PUR TO EVEN ASK MS. WONG TO MAKE A, A CHANGES TO HER STORAGE ROOM AT THIS POINT. I THINK THAT IS, IF SHE WANTS IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES, I GUESS SHE COULD COME BACK AGAIN WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ASK HER TO DO. I THINK THE PROJECT ITSELF IS FOLLOWING, I MEAN, THE GUIDELINES, IT HAS FOLLOWED THE PROCESS EXACTLY LIKE COMMISSIONER KERBER SAID. I, UH, SUPPORT THE PROJECT, BUT THE STAFF STIPULATIONS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT WITH RESPECT TO KIND OF FAMILIARITY OF, OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE MAVERICK EXISTED IN, BEFORE EX, EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER? YES, SIR. UM, YOU'VE HAD ONE, UH, STAB AT COMMENTS. LET'S SEE IF ANY OTHER OTHER COM COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU ON THIS. ON, ON THIS ITEM? YES. I DON'T REMEMBER. YES, YOU ASKED STAFF ABOUT THE I D Z ZONING. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO DO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS? THIS COMMISSIONER GIBBS, UM, THIS, UM, QUESTION MAY BE FOR STAFF. UM, AND IF STAFF CAN'T ANSWER, THEN THEY'LL GO TO THE APPLICANTS, UM, UNDER THE FINDINGS, UM, UNDER FINDING C WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE THIRD D R C MEETING THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT HAD, UM, AND IT WAS SUGGESTED AT THAT TIME, UM, PUSHING BACK THE SHORT FENCE FENCING ALONG ST. MARY'S STREET FURNACE TO ACCOMMO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. AND THEN UNDER FINDING R UM, IT STATES THAT, UM, THE, AS PART OF THAT OVERALL CONFIGURATION THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, SOMETHING HAS CHANGED AS FAR AS LANDSCAPING. SO WAS THAT MODIFICATION DONE AS A RESULT OF THE D R C MEETING OR WAS THAT DONE PRIOR TO THAT AND THAT THAT WORK STILL HASN'T BEEN ACCOMPLISHED OR THAT SUGGESTION? SO HASN'T BEEN ACCOMPLISHED STAFF, YEAH. IS THAT QUESTION TO, TO US THE APPLICANT OR TO STAFF? WHO'S THE STAFF? UM, IT WAS THE STAFF FIRST, AND IF, IF STAFF, UM, DOESN'T HAVE AN ASSET, THEN IT WILL BE GO TO THE APPLICANTS. SO THAT'S MY, MY QUESTION. I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, JAY. UM, THE SUGGESTION FOR INCREASING JUST THE FENCE STEP BACK TO ACCOMMODATE MORE IN LANDSCAPING TO GROW ON THE PROPOSED FENCE, UM, WAS SUGGESTED BY BOTH BY STAFF BASED ON THE GUIDELINES AND AFTER DISCUSSION AT THE D R C. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? THAT, SO THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. SO, SO UNDER, UM, FINDING [02:00:01] R WAS THAT ACTUALLY DONE AS A RESULT OF THAT SUGGESTION, OR WAS THAT STILL JUST MORE FINDINGS IN THAT AREA? I JUST WANTED TO FIND OUT IF THAT APPLICANT ACTUALLY DID THAT WORK, OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT THEY CHOOSE AND NOT TO DO? SO THEY, THEY, UM, IT'S INCLUDED IN THE STAFF STIPULATION BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED LIKE, THE ABSOLUTE FINAL LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT REFLECTS THOSE CHANGES. SO, UM, IT'S JUST KIND OF REITERATED IN THAT SECTION AS WELL AS INCLUDED IN THE STIPULATIONS TO MAKE SURE IT IS ULTIMATELY MET. GOTCHA. GOTCHA. I APPRECIATE THAT. SO, UM, NOW TO THE APPLICANT, UM, CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT PLEASE? UH, YES. SO WE VERY MUCH SO THE, UH, ST. MARY'S AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING PRIMARILY THE ST. MARY'S SIDE OF THE, OF THE BUILDING, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. CORRECT. YEAH. WE'RE, UH, ONE OF THE COMMITMENTS THAT LISA'S MADE ON THIS PROJECT IS INSTEAD OF JUST BUILDING THE PROPERTY LINE, SHE'S ACTUALLY REDEVELOPING THE WHOLE STREET SCAPE. AND SO, UH, WE'RE GONNA BE REBUILDING THE WHOLE SIDEWALK IN FRONT, WHICH IS IN VERY POOR CONDITION. UH, AND WITH THAT, A SERIES OF LANDSCAPE BED. SO THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THIS, UH, SIDEWALK EXPERIENCE, THERE ARE GONNA BE ROBUST LANDSCAPES. WE'VE GOT PLANTERS THAT RUN, UH, IN THE, UH, IN THE TERRACE AREA, LITERALLY ALONG THE SIDEWALK. AND THEN WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE END, CLOSE TO THE MAVERICK, WE HAVE, UH, SHADE SCREENS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF THE FACADE, UH, THAT, THAT HELP BREAK THE SCALE OF BUILDING DOWN, BUT ALSO PROVIDE LARGE LANDSCAPE BEDS THAT'LL BE ROBUSTLY, UH, UH, LANDSCAPED, UH, AND, AND PROVIDE SOME SOFTNESS DOWN AT THAT END. UH, THERE'S ALSO PROPOSED, UH, THREE TREES, UH, IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. UH, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILL BE SHOWING HIS SUBMITTED DRAWINGS, SO THAT THAT'S ANOTHER BIG COMPONENT OF, OF THE PLAN. PERFECT. THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. COULD I, I SEE HERE UNDER, LIKE I SAID, THE, IN THOSE COMMENTS THERE I MADE AND PLUS ANY RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. I APPRECIATE IT. UM, THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY, UH, COMMISSIONERS? UH, I DO HAVE. OKAY. I, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. I, I DON'T, I CAN WAIT AFTER YOUR COMMENTS BECAUSE YOUR COMMENTS ARE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF EVERYBODY FIRST. YES. THANK YOU. UM, QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT ON SHEET 32. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO COMMENTS BY THE, UH, OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT, UM, THE PROCESS I BELIEVE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND, UM, IN TERMS OF SUBMISSIONS AND, UH, COMMISSION REVIEWS, STAFF REVIEWS, AND, UH, I WOULD CONCUR WITH STAFF'S COMP, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS. BUT A SPECIFIC QUESTION ON SHEET 32 AND THIS, UH, THE SERVICE YARD IN THE NORTH IN THE, UH, NEXT TO THE, UM, RISER ROOM, THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A WALL ON THE NORTH END OF THAT SERVICE YARD. AND KNOWING THAT THERE IS A, AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER WITH SOME OPENINGS ALONG THERE, AND KNOWING THAT SERVICE YARDS CAN GET QUITE, UM, CHALLENGING IN TERMS OF KEEPING THEM CLEAN, UH, HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT IN SCREENING THE SERVICE YARD FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY? YES, COMMISSIONER, UM, I APOLOGIZE AS THE DETAIL DOESN'T DENOTE, UH, SOME TYPE OF SCREENING, BUT THERE IS A SCREENING IN THE SERVICE YARD, AND ALSO THE DUMPSTER ALSO HAS A C M U, UH, ENCLOSURE AS WELL. UH, I HAVE ALSO DETAILED, UH, TO HAVE A WATER HYDRANT, UH, THERE TO ENSURE THAT, UH, MY STAFF, UH, MAINTAINS THAT AREA AND, UH, IN, IN THE PROPER FORM AND FASHION. OKAY, THANK YOU. NOW, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ, UM, I, I, UM, I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN. NOW THE, THE DRAWING BEFORE US DOES INDICATE THAT, THAT THE, UH, DUMPSTER SURROUNDED BY A MASONRY, UH, MATERIAL. SO, UH, I, I, I WANTED TO COMMENT THAT, THAT, UH, BEING FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE TWO OWNERS, YOU KNOW, ARE, ARE, UH, IN A, IN A DISAGREEMENT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ONE CAN ONLY, YOU KNOW, DRIVE INTO THAT DRIVEWAY AND SEE THAT AREA AND, AND, AND IMAGINE WHY THAT CUTOUT IS THERE. AND, AND, YOU KNOW, AND ITS INCEPTION [02:05:01] IN THAT AREA, PROBABLY A PROPERTY OWNED BY SAME PROPERTY OWNER MAYBE THAT IT, IT APPEARS THAT REALLY WAS A LOADING DOCK, UH, AT SOME POINT. BUT I MEAN, IT, IT WOULD, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE PRODUCTIVE FOR THE OWNERS TO CONSIDER THAT ONCE THAT WALL GOES UP, THAT PERHAPS THE OWNER OF, OF THE MAVERICK COULD SEE SOME USE IN, IN THAT WALL AND SOME OF THOSE INTERIOR STYLE COURTYARDS THAT LIGHT IN FROM, FROM ABOVE. UH, SO THE POSSIBILITY OF GREAT SOLUTIONS ARE THERE, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, THAT WHAT, WHAT IS IMPLIED IS THAT ONE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE CRAFTING, UH, A COURTYARD FOR ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER AND REALITY THAT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A FAIR, UH, UM, UH, ASK BECAUSE, UH, IF, IF WE JUST LOOK AT THESE TWO PROPERTIES, THEN YOU WOULD IMAGINE THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE EATING IN ONE AND THAT SOMEHOW THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO VIEW INTO THE OTHERS, UH, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE DESIGN IS. I MEAN, IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE MOST, UH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ONE, ONE OPTION THAT THAT, THAT, UM, IT, IT, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM FAIR THAT, THAT THAT, THAT IT WOULD BE, UH, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE THAT FOR THE, THE EXISTING BUILDING. SO, SO, UH, THAT, THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS, AS A STIPULATED BY STAFF. HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF TO, I, I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE, UH, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION, UH, THAT RELATES TO THE MURAL. UM, YEAH. UM, I, I, I'M NOT, I, I DON'T KNOW, UH, THE OWNERS OF OF ROSARIOS, BUT I, I AM AWARE OF THE, THE, UH, THE LEADERSHIP THAT ROSARIOS HAS, HAS, UH, LED IN THAT COMMUNITY FROM ART IN THE HOOD IN THE PAST, UH, UM, TO, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION MOVEMENT THAT REALLY IS A LEADER OF WHAT TRANSFORMED, UM, THAT COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, BUT ALSO IS A LEADER IN THE ARTS. AND, AND I, I I, I GOTTA TELL YOU THAT I DO FIND IT VERY INAPPROPRIATE FOR, UH, THE OFFICE OF PRESERVATION TO HAVE ANY, ANY SAY SO IN WHAT COULD BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE OR INAPPROPRIATE. UH, AND SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO, MY, MY MOTION TO BE FOR, UM, UH, APPROVAL, A A AS, UH, WITH, WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, EXCEPT ITEM, UM, TWO, EXCEPT ITEM TWO. UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. IS THIS, THIS, UH, ITEM TWO IS, IS IT FOR, IT'S NOT FOR APPROVAL OF THE MURAL, IT'S, UH, NO. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE PRESERVATION OF THE MATERIALS, RIGHT? NO, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT OUR CRITICS, UH, THE STIPULATION IS THERE SO WE CAN ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO SIGNAGE. UM, SO IT, AND IF THERE IS SIGNAGE, IT WOULD JUST REQUIRES CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS SEPARATELY. UH, I I, I APPRECIATE THAT, COREY. I WOULD ONLY ASK THAT STAFF MAYBE, OR, OR THAT, THAT MAYBE THE MOTION SAY, UH, ITEM TWO, UH, TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE AS IT PERTAINS TO SIGNAGE OR SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC. WE CAN ABSOLUTELY DO THAT. OKAY. WELL THEN MY, MY MOTION IS THERE WITH CORY'S, UH, UM, AGREEMENT ON, ON ITEM TWO. SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UM, I SECOND THAT, UM, MOTION WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT ITEM TWO IS, UH, IS RETAINED FOR THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A, A DESIGN OF THE MURAL AS IT RELATES TO THIS, THE SAGE, UH, ORDINANCES OF THE U D C. PERFECT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. I JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT. I JUST WANNA SAY THAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE CASE THAT HAS, UH, HAD MORE CONTROVERSY THAN THE ALAMO. UM, I WANNA TELL THE, UH, THE APPLICANT THAT, I MEAN, I'VE, I'VE NEVER SEEN A PETITION BEING DONE FOR A CASE IN H D R C OR SOCIAL MEDIA WAR IN THIS TYPE. UM, THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT I CALLED, I WANNA THANK YOU THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE I THINK I, I LISTENED TO SEVERAL OF THE VOICEMAILS THAT WE HAD ACCESS TO THIS MORNING AND, AND READ THE LETTERS, BUT I'M JUST APPRECIATE, UM, THAT ACTUALLY ALSO HELPS US UNDERSTAND WHAT'S OUR PURVIEW AND, AND FEEL. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME, I MEAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND SOME PART OF THE COMMUNITY THAT IS AGAINST THIS PROJECT. I THINK, UH, THIS IS OUR PURVIEW, IS THE DESIGN AND THE APPLICANT, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AS COMMISSIONER OF ALASKA SAID, WILL HAVE CHOICES AND HAS RESOURCES. AND ACTUALLY MAYBE THIS WILL ACTUALLY MAKE THEM WANNA EXPAND EXACTLY AN OUTDOOR PATIO OR [02:10:01] EVEN EXPAND TO A SECOND DOOR, SECOND STORY, UM, TERRACE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT I DO THINK THAT, I MEAN, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE RESOURCES BEYOND THIS DECISION. THANK YOU. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH NAY GIBBS, NAY GIBBS, CAN YOU REPEAT PLEASE? NAY VELAZQUEZ? AYE. OLA. UM, AYE CARPENTER? AYE GO. AYE. BUT SIR, AYE. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, NEXT IS ITEM 20. [20. 21-2209 Address/Description: 130 CROFTON HDRC Case No.: 2021-077 Landmark Name: Individual Landmark Historic District Name: King William RIO District: RIO-4 Applicant: Anne Gaynor/GAYNOR ANNE C Request: Construction of a rear addition City Council Dist.: 1] SOMEBODY WILL HAVE TO REMIND ME WHO'S THE APPLICANT FOR THAT ONE. GOOD WORD. WE NEED TO UNMUTE STEPHANIE AGAIN AS WELL. OKAY. STEPHANIE, WHY DON'T YOU START BY READING AND THEN EDWARD, UM, WHEN YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT, LET US KNOW. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 20 H T R C. CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH SEVEN SEVEN ADDRESS, ONE 30 CROFTON. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A REAR ADDITION MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 456 SQUARE FEET. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REAR ADDITION BASED ON SIGNINGS A THROUGH G WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE APPLICANT RELOCATE WINDOWS FROM THE REAR ELEVATION TO THE NEW REAR ELEVATION AND INSTALL THE WINDOWS WITH A TRUE GANG TRIM AND STILL CONFIGURATION AS NOTED IN BINDING E TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT ADDS A VERTICAL TRIM PIECE ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NEW ADDITION AND EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE AS NOTED IN BINDING C AND THREE THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALLS A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF, UH, THAT MEETS STAFF STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE RECOMMENDATION. AND I WILL NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WAS PULLED FROM CONSENT AT THE LAST HEARING, UM, AND WAS NOT HEARD DUE TO TIME. SO WE'RE CONTINUING THAT HERE. AND EDWARD HAS THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. ANN ANN, ARE YOU THERE? UH, THE CALL DROPPED. SO EDWARD IS, IS GETTING THE APPLICANT BACK ON THE LINE. SO WHAT THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, JUST AS A REMINDER OF WHERE WE WERE LAST TIME, THIS WAS ON CONSENT AND THE APPLICANT HAD AGREED TO STAFF STIPULATIONS. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND, UM, THERE IS A LETTER FROM THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION, UM, THAT WAS CARRIED OVER FROM LAST HEARING, WHICH I BELIEVE MAY HAVE PROMPTED AN ACTION TO PULL FROM CONSENT. THERE WE ARE. HEY ANN. HELLO. HI, THIS IS ANN GAINOR. YES, I'M THE OWNER OF ONE 30 TON AVENUE. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I BELIEVE YOU PULLED THIS ITEM LAST TIME. HI COMMISSIONER. I'M JUST TRYING TO PULL UP THE, THE LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M JUST HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFICULTY. PLEASE BEAR WITH ME. ONE COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS A TREE. DOES THE APPLICANT WANNA, UH, ADDRESS THE TREE? THE TREE IS NO LONGER THERE. I'VE ALREADY BEEN TO YOUR OFFICE, UH, LAST, UH, NOVEMBER, AND I ASKED THEM ABOUT THE TREE AND THEY SAID IT WAS OKAY TO TAKE IT DOWN. IT WAS ON MY PROPERTY. IT WAS NOT A ENDANGERED SPECIES AND IT WAS NOT A NATIVE, UM, TREE. SO I GOT THE GO AHEAD TO DO THAT, AND THAT WAS DONE PRETTY MUCH IMMEDIATELY. SO THE, SO THE, THE ISSUE OF THE TREE DOESN'T HAVE A CONFLICT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN REMOVED. UM, I THINK WAS, THAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE QUESTION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GRU? I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WAS STAFF STIPULATIONS. THERE WAS ANOTHER COMMENT ABOUT THE, WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DID PULL UP THE LETTER. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THE FLOW OF THE MEETING, THE WINDOWS. UM, LET ME RE READ IT TO YOU. SO THE, THE CONSERVATION, THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION IS ASKING ABOUT WINDOWS SHOULD BE ADDED TO BREAK UP THE LONG 24 FEET SOUTH FACING YEAH. COMMISSIONER GROUP. I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ THAT IN, SO LET ME GO AHEAD AND DO THAT, BECAUSE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO BE READ. UM, SO M CONRAD SUBMITS FOR THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION. UM, THE ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT [02:15:01] 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 RECEIVING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. ONE CI MIRROR SETBACKS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SHOULD BE PROVIDED. TWO, A VERY LARGE TREE SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS APPEARS TO LIE WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED RELOCATED STRUCTURE. IF SO, THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING SHOULD BE ADJUSTED TO PRESERVE THE TREE IF MOTION, MOTION STILL STANDS. COMMISSIONER, I'LL SECOND. YES, IT DOES. I'M, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH STAFF'S POSITION ON THE REST OF IT. SO THAT'S A MOTION. WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ. AYE. AREOLA? AYE. CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP. AYE, UM, BETS? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. I THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, ITEM 21. STEPH, ARE YOU THERE? YOU ARE UNMUTED. YOU SEE SHE CAN'T HEAR US. ALL RIGHT. I AM ON THE LINE. ITEM NUMBER [21. 21-2197 Address/Description: 126 E MISTLETOE HDRC Case No.: 2021-102 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Cecilia Garcia/The Priority Group, Inc. Request: Demolition of accessory structure City Council Dist.: 1] 21 H G R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 1 0 2 ADDRESS, 1 26 EAST MISSILE TOE. THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH THE ONE STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1 26 EAST MISTO THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICATION DOCUMENTS INCLUDE INFORMATION ABOUT POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE MODIFICATIONS. THE CURRENT REQUEST UNDER CONSIDERATION IS FURTHER REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ONLY, AND ANY NEW SITE MODIFICATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS BEYOND THE SCOPE WILL, WILL REQUIRE A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE DEMOLITION BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH E WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE, THAT THE STRUCTURE BE DECONSTRUCTED VERSUS DEMOLISHED, AND THAT THE MATERIALS FROM THE HISTORIC ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, INCLUDING SALVAGEABLE WOOD SIDING AND FRAMING, BE SALVAGED AND UTILIZED. AND THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ON SITE STORED FOR FUTURE REPAIRS, REUSE, OR DONATED A SALVAGE PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AND TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT RETURNS TO THE H D R C WITH FINAL PLANS FOR ANY PROPOSED SITE MODIFICATIONS TO INCLUDE PARKING, LANDSCAPING, OR NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE APPROVAL OF THE REMOVAL OF THE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BY THE H D R C DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL FOR NEW SITE MODIFICATIONS. UM, THIS IS ALSO A CASE THAT WAS PULLED FROM CONSENT AT THE LAST HEARING AND CARRIED OVER DUE TO LACK OF TIME. AND I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT CECILIA ON THE LINE. CECILIA, DO YOU WANNA INTRODUCE YOURSELF? UM, CECILIA GARCIA, I AM THE, UM, OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS APPLICATION. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH, I BELIEVE I PULLED, PULLED THIS ITEM FROM CONSENT, JUST, UH, UH, TO DISCUSS THE, THE CONDITION OF THE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. I KNOW IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD'S REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, UM, ARE A PIECE OF THE FABRIC, UH, THAT ARE SOMETIMES TOO FREQUENTLY LOST. AND I, I, I BELIEVE, UH, THAT STAFF HAS THIS ONE RIGHT AT THIS POINT THAT, UH, I SUPPORT STAFF'S POSITION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, UH, APPROVAL OF THE DEMOLITION. BUT I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE, UH, STIPULATION RELATED TO DONATION AND WHAT YOUR INTENDED USE WAS OR WHAT YOUR PLAN WAS ABOUT THE USE OF SALVAGED MATERIALS IN, UH, WHATEVER COMES HERE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. UM, THE REALLY, WE THINK ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE THAT IS GONNA BE DEMOLISHED HAS ANY HISTORIC, UM, OR OLD WOOD THAT WOULD BE ATTRACTIVE TO PEOPLE WHO USE OLD WOOD TO, UH, YOU KNOW, IN THEIR, YOU KNOW, STRUCTURES. AND SO THE OWNER ACTUALLY HAS A COUPLE OF, UM, [02:20:01] UH, BUILDERS THAT HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN, UH, TAKING THAT WOOD TO REUSE IT IN OTHER PROJECTS. OKAY. THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. YEAH. AND THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. YEAH, I NOTICED THAT THE STIPULATION, UH, ONE HAS THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SALVAGE PLAN, UH, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THAT GIVES ME SOME COMFORT LEVEL IF THEY NEED TO COME FORWARD WITH PERHAPS THE NAMES AND CON CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THOSE, UH, GENERAL CONTRACTORS. THEY'RE LOOKING AT MAKING USE OF IT JUST TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT IT, IT IS ACTUALLY GETTING TRANSFERRED TO THEM. SO I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. COMMISSIONER FISH, I SECOND COMMISSIONER BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? NO. DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS? WE DO. UM, THEY WERE SUBMITTED PREVIOUSLY, UM, WHEN THIS WAS, UH, ORIGINALLY ON CONSENT AND, BUT THEY'VE BEEN RESUBMITTED, SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND READ 'EM. UM, PAUL KINISON, UM, THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION OF THE HISTORIC ACCESSORY STRUCTURE GARAGE AT 1 26 EAST MISSILE TOW. PLEASE NOTE THE CONSTRUCTION METHODS USED THAT BUILT THIS HISTORIC 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 OWNER NEGLECT. THEY WERE MAINLY BUILT IN THE TWENTIES AND THIRTIES WHEN PEOPLE STARTED TO HAVE CARS IN MONTE VISTA. THEY WERE BUILT WITHOUT MUCH FRAMING OR INTERIOR STUDS. IT IS AMAZING TO SOME EXTENT THEY WERE ABLE TO BUILD THEM, THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO BUILD THEM, AND THAT THE REMAINING ONES HAVE LASTED AS LONG AS THEY HAVE, IN OUR OPINION. LOOKING AT THE PHOTOS AND BASED ON THE PAST EXPERIENCES, THIS HISTORIC GARAGE OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CAN BE RESTORED WITHOUT TOO MUCH TROUBLE OR EXPENSE. WE WOULD HA HATE TO LOSE ANOTHER ONE OF THESE GARAGES. WE THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO RESTORE THE WALLS AND ROOF. THE NON HISTORIC GARAGE DOORS COULD BE REMOVED. UM, SO THE OWNER COULD HAVE COVERED PARKING FOR TWO CARS, RESTORING THIS HISTORIC GARAGE OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, UM, WOULD PROVIDE SOME VISUAL ARCHITECTURAL RELIEF TO AN OTHERWISE SEA OF PARKING PAVEMENT. AS STATED EARLIER, WE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION, FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION. AND I DO WANNA NOTE THAT THERE ARE NINE LETTERS OF SUPPORT, UM, IN YOUR FILES AS WELL. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ NA. AREOLA. AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. DREW? AYE BET, SIR. NAY. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, ADAM. ITEM 22. UM, I BELIEVE WE HAVE JESS AND THEN WHO IS OUR OTHER PERSON? RACHEL? I, SHE HAS BOTH. OKAY. GO AHEAD. JESS. YOU ARE THERE. JESS, ARE YOU THERE? WE SENT YOU A UNMUTE REQUEST. DO I NEED TO HIT STAR SIX ON YOUR PHONE? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, I CAN. OKAY. I WAS GETTING THEM ON BOTH THE, UM, WEBEX AND ON MY PHONE. SO JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW, I'M, I'M ON MY PHONE ONLY FOR AUDIO. OKAY. WELCOME. IT'S H C R [22.21-2217 Address/Description: 828 NEVADA HDRC Case No.: 2021-112 Applicant: OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION Request: Request for review of historic significance City Council Dist.: 2] C CASE NUMBER, UH, 20 21 1 1 2 8 2 8 NEVADA. THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS REQUESTING A FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 2 8 NEVADA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE AND DIRECTION TO PROCESS A REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE H D R C, THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE DESIGNATION OF 8 2 8 NEVADA BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH SS. AND I HAVE, UM, BOTH OWNERS ON THE LINE, JOSE CASTRO AND CARL HERRICK. GOOD EVENING. HI. DO YOU HEAR? YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD. SO, UH, IS THIS THE TIME THAT WE WOULD MAKE A OPENING COMMENT OR WE WAIT FOR QUESTIONS? WE'RE KIND OF WHAT DO WITH THIS? YOU MAY MAKE OPENING COMMENTS, THEN WE'LL GET OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. OKAY. SO WE PURCHASED, UH, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, 8 28 NEVADA, TO TAKE AND PROVIDE QUALITY HOUSING FOR, UM, MULTIPLE PARTIES ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT. [02:25:01] UH, AND BASICALLY, UH, HOUSES OF SIMILAR DESIGN, UH, EXIST ON THE BLOCK. ONE OF THOSE, UH, HOUSES IS, UH, 8 47 NEVADA, WHICH IS ON THE SAME BLOCK. AND IT'S ANOTHER HOUSE THAT WAS DEMOED ON EIGHT 11 NEVADA. AND MULTIPLE HOUSES ON THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK AND NEW BLOCK AREA HAVE BEEN DEMOED, UH, OVER THE RECENT YEARS. AND SO OUR, UH, QUESTION WOULD BE, UH, WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WERE ALLOWED TO BE DEMOED AND MADE, UH, IMPROVEMENTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT INCREASED THE TAX BASE FOR THE COUNTY, UH, COMPARED TO THE, UH, PROPERTY AT 8 28? UH, WITHOUT, I GUESS THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR, UM, JESSICA OR STAFF. YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THE INFORMATION RIGHT NOW OF, OF WHEN ALL OF THOSE DEMOLITIONS OCCURRED. UM, AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THEM WERE OCCURRING, YOU KNOW, DECADES AGO, . UM, WE KNOW DEMOLITION HAS OCCURRED, UH, OVER TIME FOR QUITE A PERIOD OF THIS AREA. UM, BUT JUST KNOW THAT AS WE REVIEW DEMOLITION NOW, IT'S ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND WE'RE REVIEWING AGAINST THE CRITERIA IN THE U D C FOR ELIGIBILITY. UM, AND THAT'S HOW THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE, WHEN TO BRING SOMETHING FORWARD FOR POTENTIAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION. MAY I ANSWER THAT QUESTION? THE, UH, I'M SORRY. PROPERTY AT, YES. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AT, UH, 8 47 WAS DONE IN TWO 2017. I WILL LEAVE IT TO THE COMMISSIONERS IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WHAT WAS ON THE PROPERTY AT 8 27. UM, BUT OTHERWISE I WOULD JUST ANSWER THAT THAT WAS A DIFFERENT PROPERTY AND SO IT MAYBE FAILED TO MEET THE CRITERIA THAT THIS ONE DID. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. I HAVE A QUESTION TO STAFF ON THE THIRD, UH, CRITERIA, CRITERIA NUMBER 13. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON YOUR CHOICE TO SAY THAT YOU WOULD INCLUDE THAT? BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A HISTORIC DISTRICT, THIS IS TO A QUESTION TO JESSICA BECAUSE THIS IS NOT HISTORIC DISTRICT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO THERE ARE, UM, THE, THE SCOTT STATE PROGRAM DOES RECONNAISSANCE SURVEYS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. UM, ONE OF THOSE THINGS WITH THE GOAL OF IDENTIFYING NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY THAT WERE THE COMMUNITY TO CHOOSE TO DO SO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION. AND, UH, THE DENVER HEIGHTS AREA, WHICH IS AN HISTORICALLY BLACK, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. UM, IT'S ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR DESIGN FOR LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION IF THE RESIDENTS THERE CHOSE TO DO SO. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE, UH, COMMENT, UH, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT, UH, CAME TO YOU GUYS STAFF? WELL, LET'S HEAR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS NOW AND THEN WE'LL GET TO COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. YEAH. WE HAVE ONE WRITTEN COMMENT FROM PATTY ZIONS. UM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO AGREES WITH THE O H P STAFF FINDING THAT THE HOUSE AT 8 28 NEVADA MEETS THE CRITERIA, CRITERIA FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION. THIS BLOCK RETAINS THE VAST MAJORITY OF ITS ORIGINAL BUILDINGS, AND THE HOUSE PROVIDES CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT TO ITS HISTORIC SURROUNDINGS. THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL HEAR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ. UM, OKAY. SO, SO THIS IS NOT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. IT'S IN THE DENVER HEIGHTS AREA AND THE OWNER PROPERTY OWNER IS OPPOSED TO THIS. UH, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND, UM, ARE THERE, ARE THERE OTHER HOUSES IN THE, IN THAT AREA, THAT IMMEDIATE AREA, LET'S JUST SAY WITHIN THREE BLOCK RADIUS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THIS, WITH THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS HOUSE? UM, YES, BUT I WILL LET JESS GO INTO MORE DETAIL IF SHE HAS INFORMATION FROM THE PREVIOUS SURVEY WORK. OKAY. DO YOU MEAN AS FAR AS ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OR CAN YOU, CAN YOU CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION? AS A, AS A WHOLE? AS A WHOLE, AS A WHOLE ARE, I MEAN, I MEAN, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT, UH, CATEGORIES, RIGHT. AS A WHOLE. ARE THE, ARE WITHIN, SAY, THREE BLOCK RADIUS, ARE THERE HOUSES THAT MEET THE SAME, UM, PARAMETERS OF, OF THIS HOUSE? I WOULD, YES. DENVER [02:30:01] HEIGHTS IS A, SORRY JESS, NOT TO SPEAK OVER YOU, BUT YES, THIS ISN'T LIKELY AN ELIGIBLE HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, THERE'S QUITE A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO A STORE DISTRICT. THERE JUST HASN'T BEEN A, A COMMUNITY INITIATED REQUEST TO BECOME HISTORIC, BUT THERE HAS BEEN INTEREST. OKAY. I, THE, THE, THE REASON I ASK IS THAT I FIND IT HARD TO, UH, YOU KNOW, IT, IT MAY NOT BE THE SAME THING, BUT IT'S A LITTLE, LITTLE LIKE SPOT ZONING THAT, YOU KNOW, AN OWNER'S NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, OWNS A PROPERTY AND IT'S NOT A HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND, UM, UH, BUT, BUT CO CORY DID, DID WE HEAR ALL OF, UH, UH, COMMUNITY COMMENT? WAS THAT JUST THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY? UM, I BELIEVE SO. UNLESS WE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL LETTERS. I DON'T THINK WE DID, NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. CORY. OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? MR. CHAIR? I'M READY FOR A MOTION. I'M READY FOR A MOTION. I, I THINK FOR CRITERIA TEAM, MAYBE CRITERIA, UM, I THINK OUR PURVIEW HERE IS THE PROPERTY ITSELF, NOT DISPUTES ON THE OWNERS. UM, THERE ARE RESOURCES AS WELL FOR AFTER OUR DECISION, WHAT CAN BE DECIDED, BUT BASED ON THESE, UH, AT LEAST THREE CRITERIA I WOULD BE APPROVED. , I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? I'LL SECOND IT. MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WELL, MR. MR. CHAIR, I'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY MY COMMENTS. UH, I THINK FAIRNESS IN, IN THE SYSTEM AND THE WAY, THIS WAY, THE WAY THAT IT'S APPLIED IS E EQUALLY PARAMOUNT IN ANY DECISION THAT WE MAKE. AND IT'S JUST INTERESTING, YOU KNOW, TO ME THAT WITHIN THE THREE BLOCK RADIUS, YOU COULD PICK ANY ONE OF 'EM AND YOU COULD BRING IT BEFORE THE COMMISSION. AND, UH, ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT FELLOW COMMISSIONER, UH, USES AS THEIR CRITERIA, THERE'S ONLY ONE OUTCOME, RIGHT? FOR ANY OF THEM. THAT'S NOT FOR ME WHAT THE KIND OF INJUSTICE IS TO ME. IT'S MORE THAT THE RANDOM MEAN, THE RAN RANDOM, RANDOM KIND OF PICK IS, UH, YOU KNOW, IT, IT VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT. I THINK IT KIND OF, UH, UH, OVERWHELMS THE, YOU KNOW, PERSON'S PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. THAT'S MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ A OLA? AYE. CARPENTER. AYE GROUP? AYE BET, SIR. AYE, MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ADAM. 23. [23. 21-2329 Address/Description: 315 W HUISACHE AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-051 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Larry Curtis/CURTIS LARRY G & JOSEPHINE F Request: Front yard fence installation, front walkway modifications City Council Dist.: 1] AFTER THIS NEXT CASE, I'M GONNA CALL FOR A FIVE MINUTE RECESS. OH, RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE? UH, WE NEED TO FIND YOU AND UNMUTE YOU. HOLD ON. , YOU MIGHT HAVE TO HIT STAR SIX AS WELL. RACHEL, WE DON'T HAVE YOU YET. THANK YOU, BRIAN. THERE WE GO. ITEM NUMBER 23 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 0 5 1 3 15 WEST SATCH. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, INSTALL A FOUR FOOT HIGH WROUGHT IRON FRONT YARD FENCE IN THE, AND THE DRIVEWAY GATE, AND TWO, REPLACE THE EXISTING CONCRETE FRONT WALKWAY WITH BRICK PAVERS. ITEM ONE, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE INSTALLATION BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH D. IF THE H C 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 LOCATION 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 [02:35:01] 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, E STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT REPAIRS AND REPLACES THE EXISTING CONCRETE WALKWAY WITH IN KIND MATERIAL AND MATCHES THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT AND DESIGN AND THE APPLICANT, LARRY CURTIS IS ON THE LINE. LARRY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY HELLO? UH, YES. HELLO AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. UM, UH, I HAVE SUBMITTED, UH, AN UPDATE, UH, AND, UM, THE, MY MAIN EMPHASIS TODAY WOULD BE IN DISCUSSING, UH, THE FENCE. UH, UH, OF COURSE THE OTHER ITEMS, UH, ARE ON THE AGENDA. BUT, UH, IN TERMS OF THE OFFENSE, UH, WE'VE, UH, SUBMITTED A REVISED PLOT PLAN AND, UH, I'VE DROPPED THE REQUEST TO BRING THE, UH, SIDE GATE FORWARD. UH, AND SO THAT PLOT MAP HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. UH, OUR CONCERN IS THAT, UH, THERE WAS AN EXISTING FENCE ON THIS PROPERTY AT ONE TIME. UH, WE BELIEVE IT WAS PROBABLY THE PROPERTY WAS, UH, DEVELOPED AND THAT WOULD BE IN 1928. UM, THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE, UH, STATE THAT, UH, NEW FRONT FENCES SHOULDN'T BE INTRODUCED WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS, SO THAT HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY HAD THEM, BUT WE'RE PROPOSING IS REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FENCE WITH A SITE APPROPRIATE FENCE IN TERMS OF OPENNESS, STYLE, AND HEIGHT. UM, AND I'VE, UH, UH, SET IN THE SUBMITTAL WHAT THAT IS, WHICH IS WROUGHT IRON FOUR FEET HIGH WELDED FENNELS, AND A GATE THAT HAS A SLIGHT ARCH IN IT THAT WOULD BE SLIGHTLY OVER THE FOUR FOOT MARK, BUT IT'S ONLY IN CONTEXT OF THE ARCH. UM, WE'RE CONCERNED THAT PERHAPS, UH, WE HAVEN'T MADE A, A CASE FOR THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN EXISTING FENCE. UM, AND WE'RE WONDERING IF THAT'S THE CASE OR WHAT ELSE WE HAVE TO DO TO, UH, UH, TO DO THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES, WE DO. UM, SO WE HAVE A COUPLE, UM, THE FIRST COMES FROM PAUL KENNISON, UM, THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DENIAL. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE NEXT COMES FROM CHARLIE FULTON. UM, THE APPLICANT'S NEIGHBORS HAVE NO RECORD OF FENCE IN THE LAST 33 YEARS. IF THERE WAS EVER FENCE, IT WAS MOST LIKELY A NON-CONFORMING CHAIN LINK FENCE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED PRECEDENT FOR A NEW FENCE. THE WOODEN FENCE BETWEEN 3 26 AND 2222 SEPARATES A MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING FROM A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS. AND THE WOODEN FENCE BETWEEN THREE 14 AND 3 0 2 SEPARATES A MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING FROM A RESIDENCE. NEITHER ARE RELEVANT TO THIS APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. THERE ARE NO WRT IRON FENCES ON THE 300 BLOCK OF WEST SATCH BETWEEN TWO PRIVATE RESIDENCES. ALLOWING THIS NEW PRECEDENT WOULD DESTROY THE OPEN YARD CHARACTER OF THE 300 BLOCK OF WEST SATCH. APPLICANT ALREADY DAMAGED BLOCK CHARACTER LAST YEAR WHEN THEY REMOVED A 60 FOOT HERITAGE TREE. WE HAVE THE SAME SIZE LOT IN SETBACK AND ARE ABLE TO ENJOY PLENTY OF BACKYARD SPACE WITHOUT A SIDE YARD. THAT'S THE OWNER OF 3 23 F H C R C DENIES THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO INSTALL A FRONT YARD FENCE. WE'RE WILLING TO REMOVE THE EXISTING FENCE BETWEEN 3 23 AND THREE 19. IN AN EFFORT TO MAINTAIN CURRENT OPEN YARD SPACE ON THIS BLOCK, UM, THE PROPOSED BLACK WROUGHT IRON FENCE WOULD STAND OUT CONSPICUOUSLY ON THE BLOCK, WHEREAS THE WOVEN WIRE FENCE BETWEEN 3 23 AND THREE 19 DISAPPEARS AMONGST THE EXISTING TREES AROUND IT. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE APPLICANT'S PHOTOS, IF THIS APPLICANT RESUBMITTED A NEW PROPOSAL FOR A FENCE SIMILAR TO THE LOW STONE FENCE BETWEEN THREE 18 AND THREE 14, THEY WOULD HAVE OUR FULL SUPPORT. THANK YOU. UM, MR. CURTIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON, UM, THE PUBLIC NOTES? WELL, YEAH, UH, I MEAN, IT WAS AGAIN, BROUGHT UP ABOUT REMOVABLE TREE, WHICH ISN'T, I THINK, GERMANE TO THIS DISCUSSION. THAT TREE HAD 40% ROT IN THE INTERIOR, AND BETWEEN THE NEIGHBOR WHOSE DRIVEWAY SIT BESIDE US, UH, AND OURSELVES, UH, IT WAS A DANGER TO THE POINT OF BRINGING IT DOWN. AND I DIDN'T REALIZE AT THE TIME THAT WE HAD TO ASK PERMISSION TO DO THAT. BUT, UH, AND THAT'S ANOTHER STORY. UM, THERE, IT WAS MENTIONED THE WOODEN FENCE BETWEEN THREE 14 AND 3 0 2. UH, THERE'S A LOW STONE FENCE BETWEEN THREE 14. HE WANTS YOU TO COMMENT WHAT'S THAT? UH, AND UH, SO, UH, I [02:40:01] THINK WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN IS WHETHER, UH, WE'VE MADE A CASE FOR THE FACT THAT THERE IS A, THERE WAS A FENCE ON THIS PROPERTY AT ONE TIME. ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S HEAR WHAT THE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ARE FROM THE COMMISSION, UH, MR. CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF A COUPLE QUESTIONS. UM, YEAH, THE, UM, UH, IN, IN THE FINDINGS IS, IS THE, UM, THE EVIDENCE OF THE FOOTINGS NOTED? THEY ARE, YES. SO THE EVIDENCE OF THE FOOTINGS IS INCLUDED IN THE FINDINGS ON, UH, THE FENCE LOCATION, I BELIEVE FINDING D. MM-HMM. UM, AND STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE FOOTINGS WERE PROBABLY, UM, ARE PROBABLY EVIDENCE OF A NON-CONFORMING CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT WAS INSTALLED PREVIOUSLY. OKAY. BUT NOW DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF ANYBODY, UH, HAVING, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, A RED TICKET TO TAKE THAT FENCE DOWN? THAT, THAT FENCE THAT, ARE YOU TAKEN DOWN? UH, NO, I DON'T MEAN TO NOT, NOT THE, NOT THE, UH, APPLICANT STAFF. YES. NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF PREVIOUS FENCING ON THE PROPERTY, BUT, BUT OF ANY, UH, AND WELL, I, I GUESS THAT MEANS NO EVIDENCE OF, OF THE CITY SAYING TAKE THE FENCE DOWN EITHER. RIGHT. OH, SO IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF APPROPRIATENESS. RIGHT. I MEAN, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS THERE AND WHAT'S NOT THERE. RIGHT. UM, AND THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE THE, THE, I LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY ENJOYED PARTICULAR RIGHTS AND THE EVIDENCE OF THAT IS THERE. UM, I THINK REALLY THE REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER IT'S CONFORMING TO THE HEIGHT AND THE, AND THE, THE STYLE I I, AND I FIND REAL PARTICULAR, THE, THE, UH, COMMENT ABOUT THE STONEWALL WHERE IT BECOMES A QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE ELSE SAYING, I PREFER THIS OVER THAT, NOT SO MUCH WHETHER THERE'S A FENCE OR NOT. I THINK THIS'S, IT'S A VERY 10 MIDDLE POINT, BUT, UH, FOR THE MOST PART THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT, THAT, THAT WAS THERE AND, AND TO THE APPLICANT. I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR, UM, THOUGHTFULNESS IN PULLING THE FENCE BACK. UM, AND, UH, I, I THINK I, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I COULD SUPPORT. UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS, GO AHEAD. NO. OH, WERE YOU AT D R C? I WAS JUST WONDERING WHO WAS AT D R C BECAUSE I REQUESTED, I THINK I MOVED THIS ONE FOR D R C, BUT I WASN'T PRESENT. SO WE COULD LOOK AT D WHAT WAS EXISTING THERE, THAT PROOF OF OFFENSE. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. I WAS THE ONLY ONE AT D R C AND, UH, LOOKED AT THE, UH, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MR. CURTIS HAD PROVIDED. UM, I TOLD HIM THAT I WAS, UH, UNDECIDED, THAT I WANTED TO HEAR WHAT THE REST OF THE COMMISSION HAD TO SAY ABOUT, UH, WHETHER A FENCE AT THIS LOCATION, UH, A NEW FENCE AT THIS LOCATION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. UH, I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT, UH, YES, HE HAD IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL, UH, FOOTINGS FOR SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN THERE, UH, BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT IT WAS OR WHEN IT WAS, WHEN IT EXISTED. UM, AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE, UH, SIDEWALK MODIFICATIONS, UH, I TOLD HIM THAT, OR I SAID THAT, UH, I THOUGHT THAT THE, UH, SIMPLER CONCRETE SIDEWALK WAS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND DETAILING OF THE EXISTING HOUSE, AND THAT A, UH, BRICK SIDEWALK THERE WOULD ACTUALLY DETRACT FROM THE, UH, SIMPLE, UH, DETAILING OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN FOR THAT. D R C? YEAH. UM, I, HERE'S HOW I LOOK AT IT BECAUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN LOOK AT JUST THAT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY AND THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN ENJOYED, UH, PARTICULAR RIGHTS AT SOME POINT, BUT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN LONG BEFORE. THIS IS EVEN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND I LOOK AT THE, UH, GOING ON GOOGLE AND LOOKING AT THE, UH, UH, AN AERIAL VIEW OF THIS. AND THERE'S ONE IN, IN YOUR PACKAGE, UH, THERE ARE NO OTHER FENCES. THERE ARE UP AND DOWN THIS ENTIRE BLOCK. AND SO WITHIN THAT CONTEXT, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. I, I THINK THE MATERIAL THAT'S BEING, UH, SUGGESTED IS APPROPRIATE, UM, WITHIN HI HISTORIC DISTRICTS, BUT WITHIN HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND WITHIN BLOCKS THAT HAVE A PREPONDERANCE OF FRONT AND YARD FENCES, THE, THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY PARTICULARLY ON THIS, UH, NORTH SIDE OF [02:45:01] THE, THE STREET. SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS. I THINK STAFF AND THE HISTORICAL, UH, ASSOCIATION, UH, HAS THIS CORRECT WITH BOTH THE FENCE AND THE SIDEWALK. SO I MOVE FOR DENIAL. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH A SECOND. SO JUST THE APPLICANT CAN ALSO WITHDRAW CORRECT. AND HAS A CHOICE TO WITHDRAW. YEAH. I THINK THE APPLICANT WAS ALSO NOT INTERESTED IN BRINGING UP THE PATH ANYMORE, OR, UH, THIS IS THE APPLICANT. I'M NOT SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. DID YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT THE PATH, THE WALKWAY, OR DID YOU JUST SAY THAT YOU DIDN'T WANNA TALK ABOUT THAT TODAY? SO THAT MEANS IT'S REMOVED FROM YOUR APPLICATION, LIKE YOU WERE DRAWING THAT REQUEST FROM THE APPLICATION? WELL, OUR MAIN CONCERN TODAY WAS THE FENCE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE WALKWAY, UH, UH, WE, BASED ON THE MOTION, I DON'T WANNA GO IN DISCUSSION BASED ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE NOW. WE DO HAVE A CHOICE OF JUST WITHDRAWING COMPLETELY. YEAH. WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS DOESN'T, THIS DOESN'T REALLY MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER DETAIL. UH, THIS PROPERTY WAS SUBDIVIDED, UH, OUT OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THERE ARE THE SETBACKS ON OUR HOUSE, UH, ARE NOT FIVE FEET. THEY RUN ABOUT ONE FOOT ON ONE SIDE, AND THE SETBACKS FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE IS ABOUT TWO FEET. NOW, ALL OF THIS IS GRANDFATHERED IN. ANOTHER IMPORTANT DETAIL IS THAT THE ALLEYWAYS ON THE 300 BLOCK ARE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CORRECT TERM IS, BUT THEY'VE BEEN ABANDONED, MEANING YOU, THERE ARE GARAGES CAN'T EXIT OUT ONTO THE ALLEY. THERE ISN'T ANY PARKING IN THE ALLEY, AND THERE'S NO TRASH COLLECTION FROM THE ALLEY. AND I DO ADMIT THAT THE, THE BLOCK LOOKS NICE IN THE SETBACKS IN THE FRONT, BUT THAT COMES ABOUT FROM THE FACT THAT THERE ARE 15, THERE'S A 15 FOOT, UH, SECTION OF GRASS TO THE STREET. UH, AND THE HOUSES ON OUR SIDE, AT LEAST, AND POSSIBLY IN THE OTHER SIDE, HAVE A SETBACK OF 50 FEET. THE FENCE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TAKES UP ABOUT 23 FEET OF THAT. THE VISTA LOOKING UP AND DOWN THE STREET WILL NOT BE, UM, BOTHERED BY THAT. MOST OF THE TIME THERE ARE CARS PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE THERE IS NO ROOM, UH, IN THE BACK. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE 30 RENTAL UNITS WITHIN THIS BLOCK. AND SO THERE ARE CARS DIAGONALLY PARKED DOWN TOWARDS SAN PEDRO, AND THERE ARE CARS PARKED ALL ALONG THE STREETS. AND ON THE, UH, RESIDENCE THAT'S ON THE CORNER, THEY'VE EVEN PAVED THE SIDE LOT ON BELKNAP FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING. UH, THE, THIS, WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS SUBDIVIDED IN 1928 AND DEVELOPED, I'M SURE THEY PUT UP A FENCE FOR THE SAME REASON THAT WE WOULD WANT TO, UH, REESTABLISH IT. AND THAT IS, UH, THE FACT THAT THAT WAS ONE OF THE ONLY YARD SPACES THAT THEY HAD. THEY COULD TURN IT INTO A GARDEN. AND THE OTHER IS BECAUSE THESE THREE PROPERTIES, 3 19, 3 15, AND I'M FORGETTING WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS ARE HERE, THREE 11 ARE SITTING RIGHT ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. THERE'S NO ROOM FOR SIDE YARDS. SO THERE ARE NO SIDE YARDS. AND, AND BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK OF 50 FEET, THERE'S VERY LIMITED BACKYARD, ESPECIALLY IF A GARAGE OR ANY BUILDING HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE BACK. SO THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE IS IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. AND, AND THE OTHER THING IS, BECAUSE THESE ARE LONG, NARROW LOTS, THIS MEANS THAT PEOPLE WALK ACROSS THESE NARROW STRIPS. A DELIVERY PERSON, A MAILMAN, IS GONNA GO FROM ONE PROPERTY TO THE NEXT TO THE NEXT, AND IT WOULD IS A CONTINUAL PROBLEM TO KEEP THEM OFF. WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING TO DO IS TO TAKE AND GET RID OF THE NUTS, AGE IN THE CRAB GRASS IN THE FRONT, PUT IN A DECENT LANDSCAPE, REESTABLISH THAT FENCE WITH A FOUR FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SIDEWALK TOWARDS OUR HOUSE. AND, UH, AND, AND, AND THEN IRRIGATE THAT USING THE LATEST IRRIGATION METHODS. THAT WHOLE BUDGET COMES TO AROUND $15,000. THE END RESULT WOULD BE A PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE A VERY ATTRACTIVE PROPERTY. THE FENCE WOULD TEND TO FRAME THE HOUSE. UH, THE LANDSCAPE WOULD BE, WE THINK VERY NICE, AND IT WOULD GIVE US A GARDEN IN THE FRONT. [02:50:02] UH, AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING, UH, FENCE THERE, IF WE HAVE AN EXISTING FENCE, WE'RE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN IT. CORRECT. I MEAN, THIS IS, UH, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE CONTINUALLY TOLD. HISTORIC FENCES NEED TO BE MAINTAINED. THIS IDEA THAT A CHAIN LINK FENCE THERE, I THINK LIKELY IT WAS A CHAIN LINK. I THINK IT WAS A WOVEN FENCE. AND CERTAINLY AT THAT TIME, IN 19 28, 19 30, DECORATIVE WOVEN FENCES WERE USED EVEN IN FRONT YARDS. UH, THE FACT THAT IT'S NON-CONFORMING, NON-CONFORMING TO WHAT, BEFORE THIS WAS A HISTORIC AREA, WHAT WERE THEY CONFORMING TO? AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT SOMEBODY BROUGHT UP WHEN THEY BUILT THIS. THIS WAS A MAN WHO BUILT THIS HOUSE FOR HIS WIFE. I'M SURE THERE'S A STORY THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. BUT, UH, AT THE THREE, THE THREE 19 RESIDENCE, LET'S MAKE SURE I HAVE THE NUMBERS RIGHT HERE. UH, THREE 19 GAVE UP THEIR SIDE YARD TO BUILD OUR HOUSE, THREE 15. AND IN DOING THAT, THEY SCRUNCHED EVERYTHING TOGETHER. THEY BUILT THE VERY NICE HOUSE. THREE 15 IS A VERY NICE HOUSE, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY PROPERTY AROUND IT. BUT I'M SURE WHEN THEY DID THAT, THEY LOOKED AT IT. I HAVE TWO FEET. WE HAVE TWO FEET OF THE ORIGINAL DRIVEWAY IN OUR LAWN. WHEN I GO IN TO LOOK AT OUR LAWN, WE'VE GOT A CURB AND A, AND A DRIVEWAY. SO YOU CAN TELL FROM, LET'S CALL IT THE ARCHEOLOGICAL DIG, HOW THAT WENT. THEY PUT IN CONCRETE FOOTINGS IN WHAT USED TO BE THE SIDE PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY, THAT SERVICE THREE 19. SO WE KNOW THE FENCE WAS PUT IN AFTER THEY BUILT THREE 15, BUT IT WAS VERY LIKELY BUILT IN THREE, YOU KNOW, 1928 OR 1930. IN THAT TIMEFRAME, THE GALVANIZED POSTS THAT WERE USED, THEY WERE ZINC OR GALVANIZED, I GUESS THEY COULD BE CONSIDERED ONE AND THE SAME. AND THE TYPE OF WOVEN WIRE THAT WAS USED HAS A LIFE EXPECTANCY OF AT LEAST 70 YEARS. WHEN WAS THE FENCE TAKEN OUT? I'M NOT REALLY SURE. BUT THE FENCE THAT STILL EXISTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THREE 19 IS VERY LIKELY THE SAME TYPE OF FENCE. IT EXISTED ON THE SIDE OF THREE 19. IT EXISTED ON OUR PROPERTY, AND IT EXISTED ACROSS THE FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY. AND, UH, AND ALL WE'RE ASKING IS TO REESTABLISH THAT FENCE WITH THE FOUR FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SIDEWALK IN WROUGHT IRON AND MEET ALL YOUR REQUIREMENTS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S, UH, OUT OF LINE TO DO THAT. AND IF YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN'T DO IT, THEN I HAVE TO ASK YOU WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS? BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T, MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. IF AN EXISTING FENCE, HISTORICALLY EXISTING FENCE IS THERE, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO MAINTAIN IT. WE HAVE A HISTORIC FENCE IN OUR FRONT LAWN, AND WE WANT, OUR PROPOSAL IS TO BRING IT BACK BY TODAY'S STANDARDS TO IMPROVE THAT PROPERTY. OKAY? NOW, IF YOU SAY THAT IN THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT, THERE ARE NO FENCES. I SAY THAT'S INCORRECT. THERE, THERE ARE HISTORIC FENCES THROUGHOUT THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT. THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. YEAH, MR. CURTIS, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS. NEW FRONT YARD FENCES SHOULD NOT BE INTRODUCED WITHIN HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT HAVE NOT HISTORICALLY HAD THEM. WELL, I WOULD SAY YOU NEED TO REPHRASE THAT, THAT SENTENCE, BECAUSE, OKAY, MR. CURTIS, ALMOST EVERY HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS A HISTORIC FENCE IN IT. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. CURTIS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE FOR THIS MOTION. MOTION CARPENTER. A VERY GOOD MR. CHAIR. YEAH, MOVE ON, PLEASE. YEAH. YES, WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE AND STAFF CAN GET WITH MR. CURTIS ABOUT WHAT NEXT COURT COULD BE. MR. CHAIR. YEAH. BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE, WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK COREY SOMETHING CO COREY, UH, ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER RUB HAD HAD RECOMMENDED THAT IT GET, UH, THAT THE APPLICANT COULD PULL THEIR, THIS, THIS BEFORE THERE WAS VOTE, BUT I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU SOMETHING. IF THE VOTE IS TAKEN AND THE VOTE, UH, IS NEGATIVE, RIGHT? IT, THAT IT, HE FAILS TO GET WHAT HE WANTS, WOULD THE APPROPRIATE NEXT STEP FOR HIM BE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION, YES. [02:55:01] ANOTHER OPTION, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP. IT WOULDN'T GO BEFORE COUNCIL OR SOMEBODY FIRST THAT HE COULD GO DIRECTLY FROM HERE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THEY WOULDN'T GO TO COUNCIL EVER. IT, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS REALLY THE ONLY APPEAL OPTION IF SOMETHING IS DENIED HERE. OKAY. THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO COME BACK TO THE H C R C WITH A REVISED PROPOSAL. OKAY. I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO THE, TO THE OWNER THAT IT MAY BE WORTH IT TO ALLOW THE, THE MOTION TO BE DENIED AND THEN GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE OF AN EXISTING FENCE, BECAUSE THEY MAY BE MORE, UM, UH, UM, THEY, THEY MAY AGREE WITH YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU. UH, THE POSTS, UH, THEY, THEY DEFINITELY ARE WITHIN THE PURVIEW WHAT IS HISTORIC, AND FOR WHATEVER REASONS, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT DEFINED AS BEING HISTORIC, EVEN IF THEY'RE THERE AND YOU CAN SEE THEM. SO, UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, SIR. WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE PLEASE. ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ. OH, EXCUSE ME. FERNANDEZ HAS LEFT, SO SHE'S ABSENT FROM THE VOTE. FISH. AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ NAY. AREOLA. NAY, CARPENTER. AYE. WHAT GROUP? AYE THAT, SIR? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. UH, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UM, SO WE ARE BACK. WE ARE READY FOR ITEM 24. [24. 21-2273 Address/Description: 1038 DAWSON ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-478 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: ricardo mccullough/mccullough design associates Request: Construction of two, 2-story, and two, 1-story residential structures City Council Dist.: 2] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 24 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 24 78. 10 38 DAWSON, THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT TWO ONE-STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND TWO, TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE VACANT LOT AT 10 38. DAWSON LOCATED WITHIN THE DIG STORE. DISTRICT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND FINAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PRIOR TO RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCED THE PROPOSED MASSING OF THE TWO STORAGE STRUCTURES ON DAWSON STREET. AS NOTED IN FINDING E TWO, THE E THAT EACH STRUCTURE FEATURE A FRONT PORCH WITH MASSING THAT IS INTEGRAL TO THAT OF THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION. IS NOTED IN FINDING L THREE THAT ALL SIDING FEATURE A FOUR INCH EXPOSURE THICKNESS OF THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH. MINOR CORNERS IN A SMOOTH FINISH COLUMN SHOULD BE SIX INCHES SQUARE AND WINDOW MATERIALS SHOULD MEET STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION. FOUR, THAT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED FROM VIEW AS NOTED IN FINDING T AND FILE THE LANDSCAPING. PLAN B DEVELOPED AND SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. AS NOTED IN FINDING R UH, I HAVE THE APPLICANT RICARDO MCCULLOUGH ON THE LINE. I WILL NOTE AHEAD OF TIME THAT HE HAS NOTED THAT HE IS IN AGREEMENT WITH STIPULATIONS THREE THROUGH FIVE. UH, SO I DO NOT THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS THOSE TODAY. RICARDO, ARE YOU THERE? YOU MAY NEED TO UNMUTE YOUR PHONE. RICARDO. RICARDO, IS YOUR PHONE MUTED? I'M, I'M, I'M STILL CONNECTED WITH HIM ON, ON MY END, SO I THINK HIS PHONE JUST MAY BE MUTED. OKAY. UM, HOW DOES THE TREAT WANT US TO PROCEED? OH, THERE WE GO. YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. PLEASE GO AHEAD. OKAY. IF, IF MR. MCCULLOUGH IS SPEAKING NOW, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. MY PHONE IS MUTED, BUT YOU CANNOT HEAR ME. WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW, YEAH. OH, OH, YOU CAN HEAR ME ON THE PHONE, BUT NOT ON THE, ON THE WEBCAST. NO, WE CAN HEAR YOU FINE NOW. GO AHEAD. OKAY. UM, SO I SAID, UH, THANK YOU EDWARD AND UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. YES, SIR. CAN YOU ADDRESS ITEMS ONE AND TWO ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS? YES, I AM SORRY, BUT I'M, UM, I'M NOT WELL CONNECTED TODAY. EDWARD, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. UH, RICARDO, IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE STAFF STIPULATIONS ONE AND TWO, WHICH, UH, COULD YOU REPEAT IT TO ME? UH, YES, I'LL READ THOSE AGAIN, BUT THEY'RE IN THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU HAVE, UH, STIPULATION ONE IS THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCED THE PROPOSED MASSING OF THE TWO STORY STRUCTURES ON DAWSON [03:00:01] STREET. AND NUMBER TWO IS THAT EACH STRUCTURE FEATURE A FRONT PORCH WITH MASSING THAT IS INTEGRAL TO THAT OF THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION. UM, THOSE, THOSE TWO ITEMS WERE, WERE, WERE ADDRESSED ON, ON A PREVIOUS TIME. AND I'M, NOW, I'M AGAIN VERY CONFUSED ABOUT WHY WE'RE GOING BACK AGAIN WITH THINGS THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN THE, IN PREVIOUS, UH, MEETINGS. UH, RICARDO, THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE DOCUMENT THAT STAFF SENT LAST WEEK, BUT TALKING ABOUT THE MASSING ON DAWSON STREET AND THE, AND THE, UH, AND THE PORT SIZE AND ALL THOSE THINGS WERE ALREADY ALREADY ADDRESSED. UH, LAUREN, IF YOU COULD GO TO MAYBE PAGE 19, RICARDO, IF YOU'D WANT TO PRESENT THE STREET ELEVATION TO THE COMMISSION, UM, THE STREET ELEVATION, AND THEN WE CAN LOOK AT THE PORCH MASSING, UH, COMMISSIONERS IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO THE STREET ELEVATION. UH, STAFF'S PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE PROPOSED MASSING AS IT RELATES TO THE ONE STORY STRUCTURES THAT ARE FOUND HISTORICALLY ON THE BLOCK. SO YOU SEE THE ADDRESSES OF 10 24, 10 28, 10 32, UM, DAWSON STREET STAFF'S PRIMARY CONCERN THAT TWO STORY STRUCTURES ARE ATYPICAL FOR THE MASSING THAT'S FOUND HISTORICALLY ON THE BLOCK. AND THEN, UH, IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 20, THAT SHOWS THE OVERALL FLOOR PLANS THAT ARE PROPOSED ON THE LOT STAFF'S PRIMARY CONCERN, UH, THAT WITH THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE TO FRONT DAWSON, UM, IS THAT THE PORCH MASSING THAT CAN ALSO BE FOUND, UM, IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, UH, THAT THE PORCH MASSING IS NOT INTEGRAL TO THAT OF THE HISTOR OR THAT OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. UH, THERE'S SIMPLY PROPOSED AS ASTUTE WITH ROOTS. UH, SO THAT'S ALSO A, A COMMENT THAT STAFF CONSISTENTLY GIVES. ALRIGHT. WELL, LET'S GET THE, UH, BEFORE WE GET TO COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. UH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME, UH, CITIZEN COMMENTS. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE. UM, THE FIRST COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT. ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. FRONT SETBACK HAS BEEN REVISED AND IS NOW CONFORMING TO THE ADJACENT HOUSES AND THE GUIDELINES. HOWEVER, THE PERCEPTION OF THE TWO TALL AND UNUSUALLY WIDE STRUCTURES SIDE BY SIDE IS NOT MITIGATED. THESE TWO STRUCTURES WILL DEFINITELY LOOM LARGE ON THE BLOCK FACE, SO OTHER DESIGN TECHNIQUES SHOULD BE EMPLOYED TO ACHIEVE A MORE HARMONIOUS, UH, CONFORMING INFILL. AND THE NEXT COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO, CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY FINAL APPROVAL. THE PROPOSED MASSING OF THE DUPLEXES AS TOO LARGE AND OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGHOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. AUSTIN STREET IS CHARACTERIZED BY ONE SINGLE FAMILY BY ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, INCLUDING NEW CONSTRUCTION WHEREVER THE LOW SLOPING ROOF FORMS, SIDE FENESTRATION PATTERNS AND PLACEMENT OF THE TWO DUPLEXES SIDE BY SIDE ON THOUSAND STREET INCREASES THE VISUAL MASSING OF THESE STRUCTURES. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. YES, MA'AM. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, THE APPLICANT IS MENTIONING THAT THIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BEFORE. HAS THIS BEEN CONSTRUCT APPROVED D R C? WELL, WHY WOULD THAT, HAS IT COME UP BEFORE? I DON'T RECALL. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING MAYBE, UH, MR. HALL, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT? I CAN PROVIDE CLARIFICATION. UH, THIS WAS LISTED CONCEPTUALLY ON AN AGENDA BACK IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR, UH, WHERE IT WAS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE, UH, PREVIOUSLY, UH, THE APPLICANT HAD PROPOSED, PROPOSED FOR THE TWO, TWO STORY STRUCTURES TO BE LOCATED AT THE REAR WHERE THE ONE STORY STRUCTURES ARE NOW. UH, STAFF AT THAT TIME NOTED THAT HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT MATCHING, UH, UH, SUBORDINATE MASSING GETS FOUND AT THE REAR OF A LOT RATHER THAN AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT. UH, SO STAFF'S COMMENT AT THAT TIME WERE THAT THE REAR STRUCTURES FEATURE MASSING THAT IS SUBORDINATE TO WHAT IS FOUND HISTORIC OR THAT TO SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR WHAT WOULD BE FRONTING THE PRIMARY STREET. UH, I BELIEVE WHAT THE APPLICANT'S REFERRING TO IS SINCE THAT TIME, UH, THE TWO STORY STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN MOVED TO THE FRONT, UH, AND THE ONE STORY STRUCTURES ARE MOVED TO THE BACK, WHICH, YES, THAT DOES ADDRESS, ADDRESS STAFF'S PREVIOUS COMMENTS. HOWEVER, THAT SOMEWHAT CREATED A NEW, UH, ISSUE WITH THE GUIDELINES THAT THERE ARE TWO, TWO STORY STRUCTURES ON A BLOCK THAT PREDOMINANTLY FEATURES ONE STORY STRUCTURES. UM, TO, TO THE APPLICANT'S COMMENT, UH, STAFF'S OTHER COMMENTS, UH, THAT WERE GIVEN A FEW WEEKS BACK WERE THE, THE ADDRESS, THE SETBACKS AND WHATNOT, WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. UH, SO, UH, MAYBE THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT'S ALLUDING TO BY THAT [03:05:04] MR. CHAIR. UH, THESE ARE NOT, YES SIR. THESE ARE NOT COMMENTS. I, I JUST NEED TO ASK, UH, FOR CLARIFICATION. AND ON THE SCROLL HERE, THERE'S SOME PICTURES OF BUILDINGS BEING BUILT. ARE THOSE THE SAME BUILDINGS AS THE BUILDINGS AND THE DRAWINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? AM I LOOKING AT THE WRONG PROJECT? WELL, IF, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME SCREEN RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT IS ACTUALLY THE, THE STREETSCAPES, THE, THE HOUSES THAT YOU SEE ONLY, UH, AS LINES, THOSE ARE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THE ONES THAT YOU SEE DETAIL ARE THE, OUR PROPOSED OKAY. STRUCTURES. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S ACTUALLY A, UH, THERE'S ACTUALLY AT LEAST TWO, TWO STRUCTURES WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OKAY. OF OVER BOTH, UH, PROJECTS. OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT THING. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS MOVING? UH, GO AHEAD, EDWARD. I I WAS JUST GONNA NOTE THE APPLICANT'S PREVIOUSLY NOTED THE STAFF THAT STIPULATIONS ONE THROUGH THREE. UH, THERE'S, OR EXCUSE ME, STIPULATIONS THREE THROUGH FIVE THAT HE'S IN AGREEMENT WITH. THE PRIMARY CONCERN, UH, FROM STAFF IS THE MASSING OF, UH, THE ON DAWSON STREET THAT'S PRESENTED ON DAWSON STREET AS SHOWN IN IN SLIDE NUMBER 19. UM, AND THE PORCH CONFIGURATION, UH, WHICH WE CAN SEE, UH, IF WE LOOK AT PAGES 15 AND 16 ON 15, WE CAN SEE AN ELEVATION OF THE TWO STORY STRUCTURE ON 16. WE CAN SEE THE PLAN. UH, THOSE ARE STAFF'S, TWO COMMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED, THAT THE COMMISSION, UH, THAT, THAT, UH, THE COMMISSION IS, IS CONSIDERING, UH, THE REST OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS. THE APPLICANT HAS NOTED THAT HE, HE AGREES WITH MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY. YES, SIR. I, I RECALL THIS CASE. I DO, AND I ALMOST REMEMBER BEING CONFUSED AT THE TIME, AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHY THE APPLICANT'S CONFUSED AS TO HE HAD IT SCALED INITIALLY THE WAY OBVIOUSLY STAFF WANTS IT NOW. AND SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY HE'S CONFUSED TOO, THAT HE DID SWITCH IT AND THEN NOW THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ISSUE, THE MASS SCENE ON THE FRONT SIDE. SO I'M, I'M, I'M CONFUSED TOO. YES. AND, AND MR. CHAIR, LET ME ECHO THAT. THAT'S WHY THE REASONS WHY I, I I WAS CONFUSING, BUT THAT ELEVATION IS THE ELEVATION I GUESS WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN FIRST. 'CAUSE THAT'S THE, THE MEMORY, UH, CARD RIGHT THERE, THAT ONE. AND WE DID, UH, THOSE COMMENTS DID COME BEFORE US ALREADY AND WE DID HAVE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SCALE OF THE PORCHES AND ALL THAT. AND, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS WAS THAT, THAT HE WAS, THAT, THAT THAT WAS APPROPRIATE ALREADY. SO IT'S COMING BACK AND WE'RE REHASHING SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT WE HAD ALREADY GIVEN THIS APPLICANT FAIR. UM, UM, UM, UM, I GUESS, UH, POWER TO CONTINUE ON. I THINK HE'S ALREADY THERE, UH, WITH, WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS THAT HE'S AGREED TO. UH, I MEAN, I, IF IF IT'S, IF, IF THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER COMMENTS, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, UH, I OKAY. I'M SORRY. PRIOR TO, PRIOR TO THE MOTION, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, YES. I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR WORKING DRAWINGS LIST THE CEILING HEIGHTS ON YOUR TWO STORY STRUCTURE. IF THEY'RE THERE, COULD YOU, UM, POINT 'EM OUT TO US? UH, NO, THEY, THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT SHOWN ON THE, UH, THE ACTUAL RENDERING THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW ON THE SCREEN. BUT, UH, IN THE FILE THERE'S ALREADY THE, THE COMPLETE SET OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS THAT ADDRESS THAT, WHERE WE DO SHOW THE CEILING HEIGHTS ON BOTH THE ONE STORIES AS WELL. THE TWO STORIES, I COULD NOT FIND THAT INFORMATION. COULD YOU POINT IT OUT TO ME? UM, WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, I JUST KIND OF WANNA MAKE CLEAR WHAT HAPPENED. IS THERE'S NOT REALLY A A BACK TO THE PROPERTY. SO THE BACK OF THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY ADDITIONAL STREET FOOT FRONTAGE ON THE OTHER SIDE. UM, AND SO PREVIOUSLY THERE WERE CONCERNED THAT THERE WAS TOO MUCH MASSING ON THAT, THAT BACK BACKSTREET. AND SO THE APPLICANT FLIPPED IT. WELL, IT'S STILL THE SAME PROBLEM. WE STILL HAVE TOO MUCH MASSING ON THE STREET FRONTAGE. AND SO ONE SUGGESTION, AND YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T A REQUIREMENT, BUT IT IS PART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE'S TWO, TWO STORY MASSES SIDE BY SIDE, AND THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THIS AREA. [03:10:01] ONE OPTION MIGHT BE TO KIND OF FLIP FLOP IT, WHERE YOU HAVE ONE OF THE ONE STORY BUILDINGS AND A TWO STORY BUILDING ON ONE SIDE, AND THE SAME THING ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, JUST SO IT ISN'T SO MUCH MASSING IN ONE PLACE. UM, SO THAT IS, I UNDERSTAND IT MIGHT BE CONFUSING, BUT IT'S BASICALLY RECREATING THE SAME ISSUE. BUT ON THE OTHER STREET, CO CO CORY, IT, IT, IT, IT, IT, IT HAS A, IT HAS AN AIR OF UNFAIRNESS BECAUSE THE, THE, THE DISCUSSION WAS FLIPPING AND THAT MASSING IN THE FRONT VERSUS A LOWER MASSING IN THE BACK HISTORICALLY. RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT THE SAME THING. THEY'RE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WAY THAT IT'S EXPLAINED TO THIS APPLICANT. IT, IT, IT STILL IS VERY CONFUSING BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MASSING IN THE FRONT AND MASSING IN THE BACK, BUT THE MASSING IN THE BACK IS RELATED TO THERE NOT BEING A HISTORIC PATTERN OF THAT TYPE OF MASSING IN THE BACK. AND THAT WAS THE END OF THE CONVERSATION. SO FLIPPING IT NOW IT'S, IT'S SAYING, OKAY, WE'VE DEALT WITH THE MASSING IN THE BACK, BUT WE'VE CREATED THAT PROBLEM IN THE FRONT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD WITH THIS GENTLEMAN. AND IT'S UNFAIR. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO STICK TO WHAT OUR CONVERSATION IS, AND IF WE MISS SOMETHING THEN LET THAT BE. BUT I CAN, I MEAN, I'M, I'M COMPLETELY IN ACCORD HERE WITH COMMISSIONER ARRIOLA THAT IT'S APPARENT THAT, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA MAKE THIS PERSON GO THROUGH A PROCESS THAT, THAT THE RECORD WILL SHOW THAT, THAT WE'RE THE ONES THAT ARE CONFUSED. NOT HIM. HE, HE'S, HE'S DONE IT ALREADY. SO, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UM, I'D LIKE TO, MY, MY, I WOULD LIKE MY COMMENT TO THAT IF I COULD. IT'S, UH, THAT I CAN ACTUALLY WORK ON THE TWO STORY STRUCTURES TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THE MASSIVE, THE MASSIVENESS. WELL, WELL, MY, MY CONCERN, SIR, IS THAT, IS THAT AS YOU, YOU AS THE DESIGNER THAT I, IF WE LOOK AT THE BUILDINGS FOR WHAT THEY ARE, WHERE THEY ARE, THEY, THEY PRESENT THEMSELVES AS PROPERLY PROPORTIONED AND THAT, THAT, THAT A FOOT OR TWO IS, IS NOT, YOU KNOW, REALLY AN ARGUMENT FOR OVER AMASSING OR UNDER AMASSING. IT JUST MEETS SOME KIND OF A, UH, A CRITERIA THAT MIGHT MAKE PEOPLE FEEL BETTER. BUT, BUT IF THE PROPORTIONS OF THE ARCHITECTURE SPEAK THE PROPER PLACE, THEN, THEN WE WOULD DOING THE ARCHITECTURE ITSELF INJUSTICE. AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE, THE PLACEMENT OF THE PORCH, THE DIMENSION OF YOUR WINDOWS WHERE THE, WHERE THE, WHERE THE ROOF EVE LANDS ABOVE THE WINDOW, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THAT, THAT THE FIRST FLOORS, YOU KNOW, GOT, GOT AN EXTRA HEIGHT, THAT THEY'RE NOT EIGHT FOOT CEILINGS, JUST BECAUSE I THINK YOU'VE GOT IT RIGHT ON. AND, AND I WOULD ASK MY COMMISSIONERS TO, YOU KNOW, UH, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO REALLY LOOK AT THE PICTURE. THEY, THEY'RE, THEY'RE REALLY NICELY PROPORTIONATE. OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? IF NOT, CAN I HAVE A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT, EVEN IF IT MEANS SENDING IT BACK TO D R C. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT BECAUSE I THINK STAFF, UH, COREY MADE A, A GOOD SUGGESTION THAT WOULD HELP THIS PROJECT SIGNIFICANTLY IS, IS FLIP FLOPPING, UM, NOT BOTH UNITS, BUT, BUT ONLY ONE OF THEM. SO THAT YOU END UP WITH A TWO STORY ON, ON ONE STREET FACE AND TWO STORY ON THE OTHER WITH A COMPANION ONE STORY STRUCTURE. UH, I THINK THAT'S A, A BEGINNING POINT, UH, WITH DEALING WITH SORT OF MASSING ON A LARGE SCALE. BUT I ALSO THINK ON A SMALLER INDIVIDUAL BUILDING, UH, BASIS, THESE DUPLEX UNITS COULD REALLY BENEFIT BY EITHER HAVING SOME OFFSET WITHIN THEM, UH, WITH HAVING SOME KIND OF, UH, GABLES OR SOMETHING THAT HELPS BREAK DOWN THE, THE LARGE CROSS GABLE THAT MAKES THIS A MORE MONOLITHIC STRUCTURE. I'M NOT IN, IN, UH, AGREEMENT THAT, THAT THIS IS, IS BEAUTIFUL AND WELL BANKED YET. UM, THERE'S ALSO SOME REAL, UH, INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE DOCUMENTS. UH, YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK ON THE SECOND STORY PLAN AND THERE'S NO WINDOW IN THE CENTER OF, OF THE TWO STORY STRUCTURES. YOU LOOK ON THE FIRST FLOOR, THERE'S NO COLUMN SHOWN ON THE, ON THE PORCHES. THERE'S, THERE'S A, SOME KIND OF INCONSISTENCY IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT THERE'S A LITTLE CONCERNING FOR. SO I WOULD MOVE TO HAVE THIS CASE GO TO ANOTHER DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING IN THE NEAR FUTURE, AND I'LL MAKE ENDEAVOR TO ATTEND THAT COMMISSION. HAVE A MOTION TO, A MOTION TO SEND THIS TO D R C. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND. MOTION TO SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION MAY HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE FISH. AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ. AYE. AREOLA? AYE. CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP. AYE BET, SIR. [03:15:01] AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OKAY, ITEM 25. UM, STEPH, ARE YOU THERE? NOPE. HELLO? STEPHANIE. JUST HIT, UM, STAR SIX. WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEND A UNMUTE REQUEST. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 25 [25.21-2293 Address/Description: 2607 BUENA VISTA ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-075 Landmark Name: Individual Landmark - Malt House Restaurant Applicant: Narciso Lira/Odyssey Services Group, LLC Request: Patio enclosure City Council Dist.: 5] H T R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 0 7 5. ADDRESS, 26 0 7 BUENA VISTA STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ENCLOSE AN OUTDOOR PATIO ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE STRUCTURE. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH F STAFF FINDS. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT ADHERE TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE DESIGN APPROVED IN 2017, WHICH IS TO HAVE THE PATIO FUNCTION AS OPEN GATHERING SPACE. AND I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT IL ON THE LINE. CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF? YES. AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. UM, COMMISSIONERS. GOOD EVENING OR GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD EVENING. UM, NARCISS WITH ODYSSEY SERVICES GROUP, I AM ACTUALLY THE REPRESENTATIVE, UH, FOR SEVEN 11 ON THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST. UM, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR, OR PROVIDE ANY BACKGROUND AS TO WHAT'S LED TO THE REQUEST WHENEVER IT'S DEEMED NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU. UH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENT. WE DO. UM, PATTY ZIONS, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO AGREES WITH THE O H P STAFF FINDINGS THAT THE PATIO AREA SHOULD NOT BE ALTERED. THIS OUTDOOR SPACE WAS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMISSION. WHEN THEY APPROVED THE DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS BELOVED LANDMARK SITE, THERE WERE VERY FEW REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE PRESERVATION, NOT REPLACEMENT OF TWO HISTORIC SIGNS IN THE CREATION OF THIS OUTDOOR SPACE. REVOKING THOSE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE THE SAME AS REVOKING THE AGREEMENT WHICH ALLOWED THE REPLACEMENT BUILDING IN THE FIRST PLACE. UM, AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. YES, MA'AM. I THINK BOTH THE CONVERSATION SOCIETY AND STAFF HAS IT RIGHT ON THIS. THAT WAS, UH, REALLY A BIG DISCUSSION ITEM, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT MAY HAVE LED TO APPROVAL COURT ELEMENT, EVEN THOUGH THE MOTELS WAS NOT CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, A HISTORIC LANDMARK OR WAS, UH, WE, THAT WAS ONE OF THE MANY ITEMS THAT WERE LISTED AS A CONDITION FOR THE APPROVAL AS WELL AS THE CLIENT SIGNAGE THAT STAIRS, YOU CAN SEE, UM, AT I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION. MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, SIR. YES. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, I, I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER GROUP ON THIS. CAN YOU GIVE US A COMPELLING REASON WHY WE WOULD REVERSE THAT? UH, HARD FRAUGHT, UH, UH, UH, AGREEMENT THAT WAS KIND OF HAMMERED OUT FOR THIS, UH, PROJECT WAS BECAUSE I, I'M CONCERNED THAT SORT OF PRIVATIZES IN SOME WAYS THAT FOR THAT REALLY HELPED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WAS KINDA SEEN AS A COMMUNITY, UH, ASSET AND ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO GATHER THEIR IN MEMORY OF HOW THE MALT HOUSE WAS ORIGINALLY A, A A PLACE OF A COMMUNITY GATHERING. GOTCHA. OKAY. YES. YES, SIR. I CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. UM, IN, IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH, UH, SEVEN 11, I GUESS IS PROBABLY BACK IN THE FALL, UM, THEY EXPRESSED A CONCERN WITH THE PATIO AREA BECAUSE THEY WERE RECEIVING COMPLAINTS, UM, FROM SOME OF THE, UH, PATRONS THAT WERE COMING AND GOING. UM, THE INTENT, I BELIEVE, WAS FOR A GATHERING PLACE, WHICH I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT THAT DEFINITELY IT WAS BUILT THAT WAY. UM, I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS NECESSARILY BASED ON THEIR EXPLANATIONS TO ME IS BEING USED, UM, THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED. UM, I'VE BEEN THERE TO THE SITE TWO DIFFERENT TIMES. UM, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A LOT OF TIMES THEY HAVE A DECENT AMOUNT OF HOMELESS PEOPLE THAT SIT, SIT THERE, PARK THERE FOR HOUR, FOR A COUPLE HOURS, OR SPEND THE DAY THERE THAT, UM, THEY FEEL CONCERNED THAT REACH OUT TO PATRONS COMING BACK IN AND OUT OF THE, UH, THE C STORE THAT ARE WALKING THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT. UM, I GUESS IT'S COME DOWN TO, TO WHERE THEY FEEL THAT IT'S A, IT'S A LIABILITY, UM, TO SEVEN 11, UH, FROM A STANDPOINT OF THEY PICK, THEY PICKED UP, UM, USED, UH, SYRINGES. THEY'VE, THEY'VE HAD THE REPORTS OF POTENTIALLY OR [03:20:01] THEY PERCEIVED, UM, DRUG DEALS IN THAT GATHERING AREA. UM, THEY'VE HAD SOME LOCAL CUSTOMERS ASKING THEM, UH, TO DO SOMETHING WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY THEY END UP, UH, CALLING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. I BELIEVE AT TIMES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS ROPED THAT AREA UP WITH POLICE TAPE AND HOPING THAT IT WOULD DETER PEOPLE FROM JUST RANDOMLY GATHERING THERE OR THE WRONG PEOPLE GATHERING THERE. UM, AND, AND HAVE RESPONDED OR HAVE, HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO RESPOND TO ANY OTHER CALLS AFTER THAT JUST BECAUSE IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST NOT A PRIORITY. UH, FROM THAT STANDPOINT, THEY'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, BIGGER FISH TO FRY. UM, SO FROM A SEVEN 11 STANDPOINT, I, I THINK WHILE THEY AGREE WITH THE INTENT OF IT, UM, INITIALLY WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED, I, I DON'T FEEL THAT, THAT THAT INTENT IS BEING FULLY MET. MR. CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS TO THE APPLICANT? YES. BASED ON, SO THIS WAS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I VOTED AGAINST THIS PROJECT WAS EXACTLY THAT OPEN PATIO THAT WAS CREATING, UH, WAS CREATED, YOU KNOW, WITH THE CONJUNCTION OF A SEVEN 11 BUSINESS, BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. IT'S GONNA REACH, ATTRACT A LOT OF HOMELESS PEOPLE, AND IT'S GONNA ATTRACT DRUG USE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. AND, AND THAT WAS THE MAIN REASON FOR WHY I, I, I PERSONALLY WAS AGAINST THE PROJECT. SO THIS WAS, THIS IDEA WAS CREATED BASED ON THE COMMUNITY INPUT, RIGHT? I MEAN, SINCE WE'RE GIVING UP A HISTORIC LANDMARK IN SAN ANTONIO, THAT WAS PART OF THE AGREEMENT. AND SEVEN 11 DID SAY THAT THEY WERE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT DID, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. SO NOW ENCLOSING IT GOES AGAINST WITH WHAT WE WERE, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THREE YEARS AGO. AND IT'S ACTUALLY UPSETTING A LITTLE BIT THAT NOW, I MEAN, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID THREE, FOUR YEARS AGO. IT'S GONNA HAPPEN. UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, UH, CHAIRMAN THIS, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ? YES, SIR. CO CORY. ARE, ARE, IS IT YOU THAT, I MEAN, WHO'S THE MANAGER ON THIS? STEPHANIE? IS IT STEPHANIE OR IS IT YOU? IT'S, IT'S STEPHANIE ST. STEPHANIE. ARE THERE, UM, CAN, CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THE PROPOSED ELEVATION IF, IF THAT'S A PROPOSED ELEVATION? THAT IS, UM, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, STEPHANIE. I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE SOMETHING TO THE, TO, TO THE COMMISSION AND TO THE, TO THE, UH, OR, OR A WAY OF THINKING AND, AND TO THE OWNER. I THINK THIS IS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD GO BACK OR, OR AT LEAST BE DEFERRED. I'D LIKE, I I, AND IF IT'S WITH EVERYBODY'S APPROVAL THERE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER IT TO A, OUR, UH, D R C. BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE'S A WAY FOR YOU TO CREATE AN ACCESSIBLE, MORE TRANSPARENT FORM OF CONTROL OF THE ENVIRONMENT. UH, I, I'M AWARE THAT WITHIN THE LAST, UH, COUPLE OF YEARS THAT THIS VERY INTERSECTION HAS BEEN A, A, A HOTSPOT ON THE CRIME, UH, UH, UH, UH, MAPS. THAT, THAT EVEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN THAT AREA HAS BEEN VERY VOCAL ABOUT THAT. SO THE STRESSORS ARE NOT JUST SEVEN 11, BUT THAT, THAT AREA AS A WHOLE. AND OBVIOUSLY THOSE, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL OF THAT RESTS ON, ON, ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS OR, UH, OF THE CITY CAUSING, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, A PROPERTY OWNER TO DO WHATEVER THAT PROPERTY OWNER NEEDS TO DO. BUT YOU, YOU, YOU PROBABLY COULD COME UP WITH A MUCH MORE BEAUTIFUL, MUCH MORE TRANSPARENT, MUCH MORE INVITING, AND ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT SO PERMANENT, SOMETHING THAT SAYS THAT ON A GOOD SATURDAY AFTERNOON WHERE YOU THINK THAT THERE'S GOOD ACTIVITY GOING ON, THAT, UH, YOU'D OPEN 'EM UP AND THEN PEOPLE COULD COME IN AND THEY'D GO GET THEIR HOT DOG AND SIT THERE AND EAT IT. I THINK THAT YOU'RE MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY THAT THIS SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE, AND IT'S NOT IN THE SPIRIT, I THINK, OF THE AGREEMENT THAT YOU MADE. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT MEANS THAT, THAT THERE'S NOT A SOLUTION AVAILABLE TO YOU THAT, THAT WOULD WORK. LIKE, LIKE MAYBE SOME REALLY DELICATE, BEAUTIFUL WROUGHT IRON THAT HAS A GATE THAT YOU CAN CLOSE AND YOU CAN LOCK, AND THEN WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE YOU CAN UNLOCK IT, YOU, YOU CAN UNLOCK IT. UH, BECAUSE WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, BELIEVE YOU MADE A MOTION TO SEND THIS TO D R C, SIR, AND ALL THOSE DISCUSSIONS CAN HAPPEN AT THAT TIME. OKAY. DO WE HAVE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I, I'LL SECOND THAT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? UH, IF I COULD JUST ADD, IF I COULD JUST ADD REAL QUICK TO THE DISCUSSION TOO. I, I, I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH THE, UH, YOU BREAK IT, YOU BOUGHT IT, KIND OF APPROACHED IT, THAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT. IT, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THERE CAN BE SOME COMPROMISE AND, AND JUST VERY SIMILAR, MUCH AGREE, KIND OF THE SIMILAR SPIRIT THAT COMMISSIONER [03:25:01] VELASQUEZ IS SHARING. THANK YOU. MAY HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE FISH. AYE GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. AREOLA? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE GROUP? AYE SIR. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I MAKE, UH, ONE LAST COMMENT TO THE APPLICANT? YES. YEAH. OKAY. IS HE STILL THERE? YES, I'M STILL HERE. OKAY, GOOD. UM, I WOULD REALLY ADVISE YOU TO COME TO THAT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING WITH SOLUTIONS THAT YOU HAVE VETTED WITH YOUR, YOUR CLIENT TO SEE IF, UH, YOU KNOW, TO COME TO LEAD THAT DISCUSSION RATHER THAN HAVE US, YOU KNOW, START SAYING WHAT IF AND DO THIS AND DO THAT, YOU KNOW, COME AND PRESENT THINGS THAT YOU THINK THAT YOUR CLIENT WILL SUPPORT. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. THAT, THAT, THAT WAS ACTUALLY, I JUST WROTE A NOTE. I WAS TYPING UP AN EMAIL TO MY CLIENT RIGHT NOW, SO THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, LET'S GO TO, UM, ITEM 26. AGENDA [26.21-2265 Address/Description: 912 DAWSON ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-086 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: TURNER JOSEPH SCOTT Request: Installation of a retaining wall, sidewalk, fencing and garage doors City Council Dist.: 2] ITEM NUMBER 26 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 0 86 9 12. DAWSON. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, INSTALL A SIDEWALK AND THE, WITH AN ATTACHED RETAINING WALL AT NINE 12 DAWSON. TWO, INSTALL A ROD IRON FENCE, THE TOP PROPOSED RETAINING WALL AT NINE 12 DAWSON. THREE. INSTALL PRIVACY FENCING AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY IN FORWARD INSTALL ALLEY FACING GARAGE DOORS ON THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CARPORT STRUCTURES. ITEM NUMBER ONE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE. THE INSTALLATION OF THE SIDEWALK WITH THE RETAINING WALL BASED ON FINDING C STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE SIDEWALK BE INSTALLED AND MEET THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. TWO, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE INSTALLATION OF A FRONT YARD FENCE BASED ON FINDING D. THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AND RETAINING WALL SHOULD NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT FROM GRADE TO THE TOP OF THE FENCE. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVED PRIVACY FENCING AS PROPOSED BASED ON FINDING INK. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT PRIVACY FENCING BE INSTALLED ALONG THE SIDES OF THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION PARALLEL TO BOTH WHEELER ALLEY AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ONLY. BEHIND THE FRONT MOST WINDOW OPENINGS ON BOTH SIDE FACADES OF BOTH STRUCTURES. PROPOSED PRIVACY FENCING SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX FEET AND HEIGHT AT ANY LOCATION REGARDLESS OF TOPOGRAPHY AND UPDATED SITE PLAN AND FENCING. DETAILS TO DETAIL IS TO BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF TO REFLECT THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL AND FOR STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THE INSTALLATION OF GARAGE DOORS WITH THE STIPULATION THAT SINGLE WIDTH GARAGE DOORS BE INSTALLED. IF MULTIPLE GARAGE DOORS ARE PROPOSED FOR EACH CARPORT STRUCTURE, THEY SHOULD BE INSTALLED IN INDIVIDUALLY FRAMED OPENINGS. I HAD THE APPLICANT, UH, MR. SCOTT TURNER ON THE LINE. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. UM, OKAY, SO YES, SIR, GO AHEAD, JUMP RIGHT INTO THIS HERE. I, IT LOOKS LIKE I HAVE LIKE A 20 OR 32ND DELAY ON MY SCREEN. SO, UM, I'LL JUST ASK, UH, I, I DO HAVE THE, UH, P D F OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS, UH, THAT I SUBMITTED AND THAT THE STAFF HAS SUBMITTED HERE. SO I'LL JUST, UH, GO DOWN THE LINE HERE. IN THE FIRST, UH, IN THE FIRST ONE IT HAS, UH, IT SHOWS FLORENCE DO DOLPHIN AND HAS A RED, UH, TWO RED TRIANGLES. SO WE COULD PULL THAT ONE OUT. LET, LEMME KNOW WHEN YOU GOT IT UP. 'CAUSE I, I THINK I HAVE A, A DELAY, LIKE I SAID, A DELAY . YEAH. DO YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT P D F NUMBER IT IS? WHAT PAGE NUMBER IT IS? UH, 1, 2, 3. IT LOOKS LIKE THE FOURTH ONE DOWN. YES, IT IS FOUR. OH, OKAY. JUST THE SITE MAP. OKAY. OKAY. SO, SO THEN THAT'S THE SITE MAP BEFORE WE STARTED BUILDING. UM, SO WE, UM, WE AGREE UPON, UH, WELL, WE, WE FIRST, UH, SUBMITTED THIS PROJECT AND GOT APPROVED WITHOUT ANY FENCING AT ALL. AND WE JUST HAD LIKE, OPEN CARPORTS AND WE WANTED TO LEAVE IT KIND OF OPEN AND STUFF. AND WE STARTED DOING CONSTRUCTION OVER THERE AND REALIZED THAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A HALF A BLOCK OFF OF, UH, HOUSTON STREET AND THAT THERE IS A, I'VE JUST COME AROUND AND SAID HOUSE ON HOUSTON STREET THERE. SO WHENEVER WE PUT LUMBER ON THE GROUND AND WE STARTED FRAMING, WE WOULD HAVE TO STAY THERE AND GUARD IT AND PEOPLE WOULD COME OVER AND TRY TO TAKE IT AND WE'D HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, GO OUT AND CONFRONT THEM AND STUFF. AND THERE'S ALL NIGHT LONG PEOPLE ARE IN AND OUT THERE. SO, UM, UH, WHEN WE GOT FAR ENOUGH ALONG IN THE PROJECT, UH, WE, WE ACTUALLY STAYED THERE, YOU KNOW, EVERY NIGHT UNTIL WE COULD GET THE PLACE CLOSED UP. ONCE WE GOT THE PLACE CLOSED UP, THEN IF THERE WAS ANYTHING INSIDE THEY WANTED, THEY JUST KICK IN THE DOOR, YOU KNOW. SO THEN WE WERE FIXING DOORS AND WINDOWS AND STUFF. AND THAT'S WHEN, UM, I, I CONTACTED, UH, MR. HALL ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, PUTTING A FENCE UP. WE ALREADY STARTED PUTTING IN LIKE, UH, SUBTERRANEAN FOOTERS BECAUSE THESE FOOTERS AREN'T GONNA BE SEEN BY ANYBODY. THE GRADE ACTUALLY [03:30:01] GOES UP AND COVERS THOSE. UM, WELL, WELL, LEMME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT. WE ACTUALLY INSTALLED A SECURITY FENCE, A SIX FOOT SECURITY FENCE. AND THIS IS NOT ON A STREET. SO IN THE, IN THE FRONT IT'S ON DOLPHIN STREET, AND THAT'S GRAY AND THERE'S A BUNCH OF, YOU KNOW, HOUSES UP THERE. EVERYBODY'S THERE. THAT'S FINE. UM, AND THERE'S REALLY NOTHING THAT GOES MISSING FROM THE FRONT AT ALL, AMAZINGLY. AND THEN IN THE BACK ON, UH, FLORENCE, THAT'S LIKE AN ALLEY OFF OF AN ALLEY. YOU CAN'T GET TO FLORENCE UNLESS YOU GO DOWN AN ALLEY. THEN YOU GO DOWN ANOTHER ALLEY BACK THERE. SO, UH, BACK THERE, LIKE WE PUT UP, WE PUT UP THE SIX FOOT SECURITY FENCE. THEY LITERALLY CAME IN, DISASSEMBLED IT AND STOLE IT. UH, THEY, WE JUST PUT IN, UH, THE STANDING SEAM ROOF. THEY LEFT, UH, THE STANDING SEAM ROOF IN THE HOUSE. I WAS LIKE, THOSE GONNA GET KICKED IN. THEY'RE LIKE, NO, NO, THERE'S NO WAY. THEY IMMEDIATELY, THAT NIGHT THEY GO KICK IN THE DOOR, STEAL THE STANDING, STANDING SEAM ROOF. SO WE, UH, PUT, STARTED PUTTING FOOTERS IN AND, UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, LIKE I SAID, THERE'S SUBTERRANEAN AND THEY ALREADY HAVE LIKE, PIPE HOLES IN 'EM. SO WE COULD PUT POSTS IN AND THEN WE COULD, WE WERE GONNA PUT A FENCE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, CUT IT DOWN AFTERWARDS OR CHANGE IT, WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO. BUT IT'S SO EXPENSIVE TO GET A DOOR KICKED IN OR TO REPLACE WINDOWS OVER AND OVER, UM, THAT WE HAD TO TRY TO SECURE, UH, THE LOCATION. I ACTUALLY TALKED TO ROD SANCHEZ ABOUT THIS. UM, I, I GUESS WHAT ME AND, UH, THE, THE STAFF AND MYSELF ARE DISAGREEING ABOUT IS, IS FLORENCE LIKE A STREET? THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THAT'S FRONTS FROM FLORENCE. THERE'S NO, UH, HOUSES BACK THERE EXCEPT IT WAS A, A GARAGE THAT A GUY CONVERTED. IT'S RIGHT NEXT DOOR. UM, A GARAGE THAT A GUY CONVERTED INTO SOMEBODY LIKE LIVING IN IT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF HOMEMADE SORT OF THING. BUT ALL THROUGH THIS ALLEY, THERE IS, UH, SIX FOOT TALL FENCES. AND IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, UM, A COUPLE, OKAY, UH, TO THE BOTTOM WHERE THERE'S TWO CARS ON THE LEFT, IT'LL BE, UH, P D F NUMBER 10. THAT'LL SHOW LIKE ALL THE, THE, THAT'S THE, MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR WITH THE GARAGE THING THAT SOMEBODY'S LIVING IN. UM, THIS SHOWS THE SIX FOOT SEATER FENCES. YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE BACKGROUND THERE. THE ALLEY IS FULL OF SIX FOOT SEATER FENCES. IF WE WERE TO PUT A FOUR FOOT FENCE ACROSS HERE, IT WOULD BE THE ONE LOW FENCE IN THE AREA, AND IT WOULD BE LOOKING DIRECTLY RIGHT INTO THIS PROPERTY THAT'S GONNA BE A, YOU KNOW, A RENTAL OR AN, AN AIRBNB OR WHATEVER IT'S GONNA BE. THE DRUG HOUSE ACTUALLY KIND OF LOOKS DIRECTLY INTO THE WINDOWS THEN AT THAT CASE. SO WE WANTED TO PUT LIKE A, A SIX FOOT FENCE UP BACK THERE, UH, IN THE BACK ALLEY, THE SERVICE ALLEY TO, TO COVER THAT UP. MR. ANYTHING ELSE? I WAS GONNA SAY, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF, IF, IF YOU YES, IF YOU GUYS HAVE QUESTIONS OR, UM, I, I, PLEASE GO AHEAD. THIS IS STAFF. CONTINUE YOUR PRESENTATION AND THEN WE HAVE SOME CITIZEN COMMENTS. YES. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITIZEN COMMENTS AS WELL. OKAY. LET ME GO AHEAD AND READ THOSE. UM, SO THE FIRST COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY DEAL RESORT DISTRICT. UM, WE DO NOT SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS FORM WORK AND POURING HAS ALREADY COMMENCED AND THIS UNAPPROVED AND UNPERMITTED RETAINING WALL, WHICH IS NECESSARY ONLY BECAUSE THE BUILDER HAS ADDED SO MUCH FILL TO THE SITE. THERE ARE PROPERTIES EASTWARD UP THE HILL THAT HAVE CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS, BUT THOSE ARE ONLY ONE FOOT OR SLIGHTLY TALLER. NONE ARE AS HIGH AS THE WALL AND SIR FORM WORK AS NINE 12 SUGGESTS. UM, AS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOS, THE FOUNDATION IS NO LONGER ONE FOOT 10 INCHES OR RAISED AS APPROVED AS THE AT THE MAY 20TH, 2020 H C R C HEARING. AS A RESULT OF THIS WORK, THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED DESIGN AND RAISE FOUNDATION AND MULTIPLE RISER STEPS TO THE FRONT PORCH THAT ARE DEFINING FEATURES OF THE STRUCTURES ON DAWSON APPEAR NOW AS A SLAB ON GRADE HOUSE WITH RETAINING WALL. UM, THE NEXT COMMENT COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS THE CON, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK AT NINE 12 DAWSON. THE ONE STORY HOUSE WITH THE FRONT ENTRANCE ON FLORENCE ALLEY WOULD BE, SHOULD BE TREATED AS RESIDENTS AND CONFORMED TO THE SAME PRINCIPLES AS THE HOUSE FACING DAWSON REQUESTED FENCE SHOULD BE OPEN AND DESIGNED IN MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FOUR FEET OF ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GRADE. OKAY. SO FOR THE, UH, FIR UH, FOR THE, THE FIRST, UH, UH, COMMENT THERE, UM, IT IS, IT, IT, THE FOUNDATION STARTS AT AS A FOOT, UH, 10 ON THE LEFT AS YOU'RE FACING DAWSON. AND THEN IT DROPS OFF, AND THEN THERE'S A FOUR FOOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PORCH AND THE, THE, UM, THE SIDEWALK. SO THERE IT IS A, IT'S KIND OF A STEEP FRONT YARD. UM, THE, WE HAD, WE GOT AN APPROVED, UH, SIDEWALK GUY, THEY CAME IN, HE SAID, HEY, YOU'RE GONNA NEED THIS IN TALL OF A PAINTING WALL. AND AFTER I TALKED TO STAFF, THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'LL GIVE YOU A FOOT, YOU KNOW, ONE, ONE FOOT THERE. AND I SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? AND I WENT OVER THERE AND LOOKED AT IT AND I THOUGHT, WE'LL GET THIS SCRAP OFF. WE'LL JUST HAND DIG ALL THAT, ALL THAT OUT AND JUST MAKE IT A SLOPE FRONT YARD TO THE ONE FOOT. AND WE AGREED WITH THAT. UM, IT LOOKS LIKE A SLAB ON GRADE 'CAUSE IT IS A SLAB ON GRADE. I DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT [03:35:01] I THINK THEY WERE COMMENTING ON, WHICH I, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH IS OUR SIDEWALK SEEMS LIKE IT'S HIGH. SO AS WE DIG OUT THE FRONT YARD, SO IT SLOPED DOWN TO THE ONE FOOT RETAINING WALL, I'M ACTUALLY GONNA HAVE 'EM LOWER THE SIDEWALK AND THEN PUT LIKE A COUPLE STEPS UP BY THE HOUSE. AND I THINK THAT WOULD HELP, UM, MAKE THAT LOOK A LOT LOWER IN THE FRONT. SO THE FORMS THAT ARE THERE ARE GONNA BE USED, BUT IT'S ONLY GONNA BE ONE FOOT, UM, ONE FOOT RETAINING WALL GOING TO THE, UH, THE FRONT THERE. UM, WELL THAT'S ALL I HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT. I'M NOT SURE. I, I DON'T, I'M NOT, I DON'T KNOW WHO THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY IS, BUT I CAN'T COMMENT ON WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY SAID. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS WAS COMMISSIONER FISH. YES, SIR. UM, I'VE GOT A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT. UM, IN TERMS OF STAFF STIPULATIONS, UM, THAT ARE RECOMMENDED HERE. IT, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT REALLY IS THE FLORENCE FACING FENCE HEIGHT THAT YOU'RE IN DISAGREE AGREEMENT WITH? OR ARE THERE OTHER ASPECTS OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS HERE THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE DISAGREEING WITH? JUST A FEW MOVING? UH, IT'S ONLY, I'M SORRY. IT, IT'S ONLY THE TWO FOOT DIFFERENCE IN FIT, UH, IN THE BACK, UH, ON FLORENCE, UH, FLORENCE ALLEY BACK THERE. SO THIS IS A THREE UNIT STRUCTURE. WE GOT A CERTIFICATE OF DETERMIN TO TERM DETERMINATION FOR A THREE UNIT STRUCTURE. AND SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE IT IS ONE BIG THING, BUT AS FROM, UH, DAWSON, IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A ONE, A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. THAT'S WHAT, UH, WAS SUGGESTED BY LIKE, UM, I THINK IT WAS HER NAME WAS SERVINO. UH, AND SHE, SHE KIND OF WALKED ME THROUGH THAT. SO WE CHANGED OUR PLANS UP AND MADE IT LOOK LIKE A, A ONE HALF. SO THAT'S WHAT'S BACK THERE, THAT HOUSE, WE'VE NEVER CONSIDERED THAT TO BE LIKE THE FRONT OF ANYTHING. THAT'S THE BACK PORCH OF THIS THREE UNIT COMPLEX. OKAY. AND THAT'S THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT AND TREATED THAT WAY. SO YOU'RE DESCRIBING THAT AS KIND OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, BUT WHICH WAY IS IT ADDRESSED? IS IT ADDRESSED TO ? WELL, IT'S, I, I DESIGNED THAT BUILDING AND I DID NOT ADDRESS IT TO WHERE IT WAS GONNA BE. YOU'RE GONNA PARK OFF OF FLORENCE, YOU ACTUALLY PARK OFF THE DAWSON PULLING FROM THE SIDE, AND YOU WALK INTO THE OTHER WAY. THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING LOOKS JUST LIKE THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, EXCEPT ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING THERE'S TWO SETS OF FRENCH DOORS AND A, THERE'S, THERE'S NOW, UH, SO THE PICTURE, UH, OF THE BUILDING, LET ME FIND IT REAL QUICK. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE REALLY, THIS IS THE CRUX HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT IS, UM, IS GONNA BE P D F, UM, OKAY, THERE WE GO. UM, NUMBER SEVEN, PAGE SEVEN. UM, THERE, THERE'S IN THERE. THIS IS, SO WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S LIKE OUT OF THE ORDINARY AT ALL. SO I ACTUALLY DROVE AROUND AND I LOOKED FOR EVERY PLACE THAT THERE WAS A, A, A ALLEYWAY AND THAT THERE WAS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, UH, BEHIND ANOTHER HOUSE. SO YOU HAVE LIKE A BIG HOUSE AND YOU HAVE A SMALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE. AND SO EVERY PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT. THAT'S TRUE. BUT I LOOKED FOR ONE THAT HAD LIKE THIS ON AN ALLEYWAY. AND THE REASON WHY I WANT THE SIX FOOT FENCE SO BAD IS BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH CRIME THAT GOES ON IN THESE ALLEYWAYS. 'CAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER HOUSES AROUND. SO I GO AROUND AND, AND THE PICTURES THAT ARE GONNA COME UP, I TOOK 14 PICTURES OF, UH, PLACES AND THESE, I WENT DOWN EVERY ALLEY IN NUITY AND I TOOK A PICTURE OF EVERY PLACE THAT HAS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE BACK. SO IF YOU JUST SCROLL THROUGH ALL THE PICTURES THERE, THAT'S EVERY PLACE IN NUITY HISTORIC DISTRICT. I COULD FIND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAD A SIX FOOT FENCE EXCEPT ONE. AND IT HAS PARTIALLY A SIX FOOT FENCE. SO IF THEY MADE ME PUT A FOUR FOOT FENCE BACK HERE, IT WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE THAT I COULD FIND IN ANNUITY THAT'S LIKE THIS. AND JUST OUTTA LIKE A, A, A FAIRNESS THING. UM, UM, I ASKED MR. MR. TURNER, WHERE IS, WHERE IS FRONT FIND THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. IT LOOKS LIKE THIS. WHERE IS THE FRONT DOOR FOR THIS, WHAT YOU'RE CALLING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? IT IS ON THE NORTH FACE OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. UH, IT IT, YOU ACTUALLY PULL INTO A GARAGE AND THEN YOU WALK INTO THE, THE FRONT DOOR OF IT. MI MR. CHAIR, THIS IS THE REAR STEP BACK MI MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER. YES. ASK THE QUESTION. THAT'S REAL IMPORTANT. UH, IS ANYTHING ADDRESSED ON THAT ALLEY? ANYTHING? THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING AT ABOUT THE FRONT DOOR. YEAH. WELL THIS IS WHAT COMMISSIONER FISHER WAS ASKING. HE DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER. OKAY. THE, UH, THE ADDRESSING DEPARTMENT SAID, BECAUSE I ORIGINALLY WANTED TO TRY TO AN ADDRESS OFF OF FLORENCE, AND THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT ADDRESS IT OFF OF FLORENCE. AND THE ONLY WAY THEY WOULD APPROVE IT IS IF I EXHIBIT, UH, 9 1 2 DAWSON, UNIT 1 0 1, 1 0 2, AND 1 0 3. SO THE ADDRESS OF THIS BUILDING, THE IN THE BACK IS 9 1 2, UH, UNIT 1 0 3. OKAY. THEY, AND THEY SAID THAT THIS WOULD BE THE REAR SETBACK, SIR, THAT, THAT ANSWER [03:40:01] IS THE RIGHT ANSWER BECAUSE TECHNICALLY YOU ONLY HAVE ONE FRONT, YOU CAN'T HAVE TWO FRONTS. RIGHT. SO IF, IF THE ALLEY IS THE SIDE, THEN IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHY STAFF, YOU KNOW, UH, WOULDN'T LET YOU PUT A SIDE WHAT WOULD QUALIFY AS A SIDE FENCE. UH, SO YOU, YOU'RE, I I WOULD IMAGINE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A FIVE FOOT OR A SIX FOOT FENCE, BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THREE SIDES. THE ONLY PROBLEM THEN BECOMES THAT, THAT TECHNICALLY A SIDE FENCE CAN ONLY GO UP TO THE FRONT LINE, BUT I GUESS IT DOESN'T, I GUESS IT DOESN'T QUALIFY HERE. 'CAUSE YOU'RE ON DAWSON. SO THAT IS CO COREY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS THING LOOKS, THAT LINE IS HIS REAR PROPERTY LINE, RIGHT? THE ALLEY LINE. I MEAN, YES, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT HOLD, HOLD ON BEFORE YOU SAY THAT. OKAY. SO THAT'S HIS REAR PROPERTY LINE, THEN HIS SIDE PROPERTY LINES ARE ON THE EAST AND WEST, RIGHT? YES. AND HIS MAIN PROPERTY LINE IS ON DAWSON. IS HE HE'S GOT THE RIGHT, I MEAN, IT'S HIS RIGHT. I BELIEVE THERE'S STILL AN OUTSTANDING QUESTION OF HOW THIS BUILDING IS ORIENTED. I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND THAT, CORY, BUT HE'S GOT ADDRESSING THAT TOLD HIM AND, AND, AND HE'S ADDRESSING ACCORDING TO THE WAY THAT HE WAS TOLD TO ADDRESS THEM, WHICH IS SAYING THAT THEY'RE SET UP AS UNITS AND, AND THEN WITH THE PICTURES THAT HE SHOWED, RIGHT. HE'S LIKE FAR LESS RADICAL THAN SOME OF THE STUFF THAT HE SHOWED US. SO IT'S INTERESTING. RIGHT. BUT, BUT IT, IT, IT APPEARS THAT THE BEAUTIFUL ELEVATION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, CORY IS ACTUALLY ON THE, ON THAT OTHER STREET, NOT, NOT DAWSON, BUT THE LONG ONE THAT REALLY IS A SIDE ELEVATION THAT IT REALLY DOESN'T APPEAR THAT, THAT IT'S A, IT'S A PATTERN ISSUE. MR. CHAIR? YES, MA'AM. UM, I THINK THE GUIDELINES IS WHAT COMES IN PLACE HERE. AND I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS MA STATING A CASE ALSO OF INSECURITY. AND WE, WE HAVE ACTUALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DO THESE CASE BY CASE AND THEN THERE HAS BEEN INSTANCES IN NUITY FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE, UNFORTUNATELY. YOU FROZE. COMMISSIONER BRUCE, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YOU CAN. OH YEAH. YES, MA'AM. OKAY, SORRY. I THINK SLIDE 10 GIVES US A LITTLE BIT ALSO ABOUT COMPELLING WHAT'S ON THE STREET. I THINK HERE IT'S ABOUT US, UH, REALLY TRYING TO SEE. OKAY. IT'S CASE BY CASE. SO I THINK THIS PICTURE TELLS ME THAT I WOULD SUPPORT THAT FENCE ALONG FLORENCE AND MAYBE TURN AROUND THE CORNER, UM, ALONG WHEELER. UM, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THIS IS FOR US TO DECIDE BECAUSE THE GUIDELINES COME IN A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFICULT POSITION ALSO BECAUSE IT'S A NON-WORKING ALLEY AND IT'S A CORNER PROPERTY. UM, IF THE APPLICANT, I MEAN, IF WE DON'T, I DO FEEL MAYBE THIS IS SHOULD BE A D R C DISCUSSION. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. UH, IF THE APPLICANT IS IN A, IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION STIPULATIONS FOR ITEMS ONE, TWO, AND FOUR, UM, I CAN ATTEMPT A A MOTION THAT THAT MIGHT BE SATISFACTORY FOR ITEM THREE. BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT, UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE FRONT FENCE AND GATE AT THE FRONT STEPS. YES. IF YOU LOOK AT SLIDE EIGHT, THE STEPS THAT ARE FRAMED OKAY, ARE CLOSE OUT TO THE FRONT SIDEWALK. AND THEN IF YOU GO TO SLIDE 17, YOU HAVE THE, UM, GATE AT THE TOP OF THE STEPS, WHICH MAKES IT A VERY TALL GATE AS YOU'RE WALKING BY, SINCE YOU'RE REGRADING THE FRONT WALK ANYWAY, TO PROVIDE SOME STEPS AT THE FRONT PORCH, COULD YOU PUSH THESE FRONT STEPS FURTHER INTO THE PROPERTY AND RUN YOUR GATE OUT AT YOUR RETAINING WALL THAT'S PARALLEL TO THE SIDEWALK SO THAT THE WHOLE THING, INCLUDING THE GATE IS ONLY FOUR FEET FROM THE SIDEWALK. SO AT THE, UM, I, I THINK WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE, WHAT'S REASONABLE TO DO IS IF I HAD THREE STEPS, LIKE RIGHT AT THE SIDEWALK, BECAUSE IT DOES GET REALLY STEEP, UH, RIGHT THERE. IF, IF, UM, BUT IF I PUT, UH, THE THREE STEPS, IF I PUT THREE STEPS UP AGAINST THE HOUSE AND LOWER THE SIDEWALK, THEN IT WOULD ALSO LOWER THE FENCE. SO IF I HAD LIKE THREE STEPS AT THE HOUSE AND THEN THREE STEPS AT THE, [03:45:01] UM, FROM THE SIDEWALK, THEN I THINK THAT THEN THE DEFENSE WOULD COME DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY, THEN THE DEFENSE WOULD ONLY BE, UH, 21 INCHES OFF OF THE GROUND THERE. OKAY. WELL, LET'S HEAR WHAT COMMISSIONER FISH SAYS FOR A AT RELATIONS. WELL, THAT, THAT'S SPEAK PLEASE LET ME SPEAK, PLEASE. LET'S HEAR WHAT COMMISSIONER FISH HAS FOR A MOTION. OKAY. UM, IT, IT, WE MIGHT NEED AN, UH, AN AMENDMENT, UH, TO THE MOTION, BUT, UH, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS ONE, TWO, AND FOUR WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND APPROVAL OF ITEM THREE, THE DEFENSE NOT EXCEED SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, UM, FROM BEHIND THAT CAN, THAT CAN BEGIN FROM BEHIND THE FIRST WINDOW OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE FACING DAWSON AND MOVE DOWN BOTH ALLEYS, INCLUDING FLORENCE, AROUND THE PROPERTY. UM, AND I, I WOULD TAKE IT ANY FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS FOR, FOR, UH, CLARIFICATION ON THE GATE. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRUAL. SECOND, I THINK THE STIPULATION OF ITEM TWO THAT SAYS TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE FENCE AND RETAINING WALL, MAYBE WE COULD JUST ADD THE WORD AND GATE SHOULD NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET FROM THE GRADE TO THE TOP OF THE FENCE. IF KEVIN WOULD ACCEPT THAT. AM I ALLOWED TO HAVE THE GATE OPEN OUT ONTO THE SIDEWALK? BECAUSE IF I COULD DO THAT, IF YOU'D LIKE THAT. NO, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN. I THINK WHAT I THINK WHAT THE CHAIRMAN SUGGESTED THAT THE STEPS BE PUSHED A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TOWARD THE FRONT PORCH SO THE GATE CAN BE ALONG THE SIDEWALK AND THE GATE CAN OPEN IN AND THERE'D BE ENOUGH ROOM. OKAY, I AGREE TO THAT. I I'LL DO THAT. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. AND THE BIGGEST THING THAT I, I JUST HAD TO GET DONE WAS THE SIX FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE BACK FOR THE SECURITY REASONS. EVERYTHING ELSE, I'LL, I'LL DO WHATEVER YOU GUYS WANT ME TO DO. CAN, SO I THINK THAT MEANT THAT MOTION CAN BE AMENDED AS SO, MR. CHAIR, DO YOU AGREE? YES. SECOND? YES. OKAY. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO ASK ANY DISCUSSION. YES, SIR. UH, YES. COMMISSIONER CO. CORY, COULD, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO LAY THE, THE, UH, SITE PLAN ON THE SCREEN AND THEN WITH A CURSOR, UH, UH, JUST KIND OF DRAW A LINE ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT COMMISSIONER FISH IS SAYING SO THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MOTION IS? WHICH PART OF THE MOTION DO THE, THE MOTION THAT DOES WITH DEFENSE? SO I BELIEVE IT'S THIS, WELL, COMMISSIONER FISH, I BELIEVE YOU'RE SAYING THAT SIX FEET WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE SIDE, RIGHT? YES. BUT THEN OKAY. BUT THE, THE LIMITATION ON THE ALLEY IS RELATED TO SOME FRONT WINDOW. SO, SO THAT'S WHY I SAY HERE'S A CURSOR TO SHOW ME WHERE THE SIX FOOT IS. SO DROP IT FURTHER DOWN. LAUREN, FURTHER DOWN. COMMISSIONER FISH? NO, IT'S GONNA BE THE, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE STRUCTURE THAT'S ORIENTED ALONG DAWSON, THAT THE SIX FOOT FENCE TRANSITION RIGHT THERE AT THAT WINDOW, RIGHT WHERE YOU'RE SHOWING IT. AWESOME. RIGHT. OKAY. THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR MOTION IS. THANK YOU COREY. APPRECIATE IT. AND NOT AT THE FRONT CORNER. GOT IT. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ARE WE CLEAR ON THE MOTION? I AM. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELAZQUEZ AYE. AREOLA? AYE. CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP, FETZER AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM [27. 21-2281 Address/Description: 1210 VIRGINIA BLVD HDRC Case No.: 2021-103 Historic District Name: Knob Hill Applicant: Melinda Newman/Titan Solar Power TX Request: Solar panel installation City Council Dist.: 2] 27? YES. ITEM NUMBER 27, CASE NUMBER 20 21 0 1 0 3 AT 1211 VIRGINIA, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO INSTALL 28 SOLAR COLLECTOR PANELS MATCHING THE 18 DEGREE SLOPE OF THE ROOF WITH 10 INCH RAISED BRACKETS ON THE EAST ROOF SLOPE FRONT FROM FRONT TO REAR. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS B THROUGH D WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT ONE, THREE TO FIVE FRONT MOST PANELS ARE RELOCATED TO THE REAR EAST ROOF SLOPE OR REMOVED FROM THE DESIGN. TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCED THE HEIGHT OF THE MOUNTING BRACKETS TO FLUSH MOUNT THE PANELS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. AND THREE, THAT THE PANELS SHOULD MAINTAIN AT LEAST 18 INCHES FROM THE ROOF EAVES. I HAVE NICOLE ON THE LINE FROM TITAN SOLAR POWER. LAST TIME I HAD SPOKEN [03:50:01] TO THE APPLICANT AND THE SOLAR COMPANY, THEY WERE NOT, UH, OPPOSED OR NECESSARILY COMMITTED TO THE STIPULATIONS YET. NICOLE, WERE YOU ABLE TO COMMIT TO THE STIPULATIONS AT THIS TIME? UH, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. WE DEFINITELY CAN RELOCATE THREE OF THOSE MODULES TO THAT BACK ROOF SECTION. THAT'S ALL THAT WILL FIT THERE. UM, AND IF WE, IF THEY'RE WANTING US TO, UH, RELOCATE FIVE OF 'EM, UM, WE COULD FIND A SPOT FOR THE OTHER TWO. MR. CHAIRMAN? MR. CARPENTER? YES SIR. YES. UH, WITH THAT STATEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. I SECOND. SECOND VELAZQUEZ MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION I WANT . YES. COMMISSIONER COMPLETE IN OUR FOLDER? I AM. I CAN SEE HERE THIS IS PAGE ONE. YOU WERE MISSING THE FIRST PART OF THE FILE. OH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. I'M SORRY. I SEE THAT NOW. PAGE ONE IS JUST THE, THE RECOMMENDATION. OH, JUST A, JUST A THOUGHT WAS ON LINE TWO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. MAY YOU HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELAZQUEZ AYE. AREOLA CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP? AYE. BE AYE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 28, RACHEL, I THINK SHE'S STILL GETTING THE APPLICANT SO YOU'LL HAVE TO HIT START SIX. OKAY, I'LL SEND IT. THANK YOU. THREE. THERE YOU GO. ALRIGHT. CASE NUMBER [28. 21-2269 Address/Description: 415 LABOR ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-081 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: Lauri Azzaro/Real Life Ministries Request: Window replacement City Council Dist.: 1] 28 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 0 8 1 4 15 LABOR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE EIGHT EXISTING ALUMINUM WINDOWS WITH NEW VINYL WINDOWS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF WINDOW REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH C WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALLED FULLY WOOD WINDOWS OR ALUMINUM CLOUD WOOD WINDOWS THAT MEET STAFF STANDARD WINDOW STIPULATIONS AND SUBMITS UPDATED SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AND THE APPLICANT, SEAN ZARO, IS ON THE LINE. SEAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR REQUEST? UH, YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU ALL FOR, FOR GIVING US A HEARING. UH, WE, WE'VE HAD THIS HOUSE FOR, WE'RE A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. WE'VE HAD THE HOUSE FOR 20 SOME YEARS, AND THESE ARE THE WINDOWS THAT HAVE BEEN IT THE ENTIRE TIME. UH, WE ARE RESTORING THE HOUSE. IT'S BEEN, WE USED IT BACK WHEN VICTORIA COURTS WAS OPERATING. WE USED IT AS A MINISTRY CENTER AND WE'RE GONNA RESTORE IT TO, YOU KNOW, A VERY NICE KINDA, UH, WE WANT IT TO BE ATTRACTIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND USE IT AGAIN AS A MINISTRY CENTER AND DO SOME THINGS OUT OF THAT. WE'RE NOT REALLY MAKING ALL ANY ALTERATIONS. THE REASON WE'RE REPLACING THE WINDOWS IS BECAUSE THEY'RE BROKEN AND WE, WE KIND OF HAVE TO, I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE TO, WE COULD LEAVE THEM, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. UM, WE'RE A NONPROFIT AND THE IDEA OF, OF THESE WINDOWS, WOODEN WINDOWS OR EVEN THE, THE WRAPPED WINDOWS ARE $500 MORE EACH, AND THAT'S KIND OF A STRAIN. SO WE WERE HOPING TO BE ABLE TO PUT WINDOWS SIMILAR TO WHAT ARE IN THERE AND HAVE BEEN IN THERE FOR OVER 20 YEARS. UH, JUST SO THERE'S NOT BROKEN WINDOWS. THAT'S OUR REQUEST. OKAY, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS, COREY? WE DO NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? I HAVE A COMMENT. UH, A QUESTION. YES, SIR. TO THE APPLICANT. FOR THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UH, TO THE APPLICANT, WOULD, WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR, YOUR NEED AS A HARDSHIP? WELL, WE ARE, WE'RE A NONPROFIT. YES. I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA BE, WE REALLY WANT TO BRING THE HOUSE UP TO A VERY ATTRACTIVE, AND WE'VE SEEN WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE COMMUNITY AND WE SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A DIFFERENT KIND OF MINISTRY IN THE COMMUNITY AND DO SOMETHING VERY NICE FOR THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT OBVIOUSLY WE'RE, WE HAVE TO RAISE FUNDS AND YEAH, I WOULD CALL IT A HARDSHIP BECAUSE WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT ABLE, THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE. OKAY, SIR. WELL, WELL LEMME ALSO TELL YOU THAT IF YOU WERE THERE, GOING BACK TO THE VICTORIA COURTS, I, I APPRECIATE YOU HAVING STAYED IN THAT COMMUNITY THROUGH ALL THE CHANGES, BUT MOST DEFINITELY HAVING SERVED THAT COMMUNITY AT A TIME WHEN THE COMMUNITY WAS VERY DEPRESSED. I APPRECIATE THAT. SO, UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. YES, SIR. UH, A QUESTION FOR STAFF THEN. UH, THE VINYL WINDOWS THAT WERE BEING PROPOSED, UH, WE CAN'T [03:55:01] REJECT THOSE BASED UPON MATERIALITY, BUT DIMENSIONALLY DO THEY MEET THE GUIDELINES? THE STAFF HASN'T RECEIVED A WINDOW CUT SHEET FOR THESE WINDOWS. GENERALLY VINYL WINDOWS DO NOT MEET THE STAFF STANDARDS, UH, SPECIFICATIONS, HOWEVER. OKAY. SO HERE'S A, ANOTHER, UH, QUESTION IS FOR THE APPLICANT. HAVE YOU INVESTIGATED, UM, SAY, FIBERGLASS WINDOWS OR SOME OTHER OPTIONS THAT MIGHT MEET THOSE STANDARDS? WE, WE HAVEN'T. WE'RE NOT, UH, AGAIN, THE WINDOWS WE'RE LOOKING AT ARE COMPARABLE TO WHAT ARE IN THERE. WE LIKE VINYL JUST FOR MAINTENANCE AND FOR, YOU KNOW, UH, IT, IT, WE, WE CONSIDER THEM TO BE EQUAL QUALITY. BUT WE HAVE, WE HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED, WE'VE LOOKED AT THE, THE ONES THAT DO MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS OR THAT ARE, THAT YOU GUYS REQUESTED. BUT AS FAR AS THE OTHERS, WE HAVE NOT. WE, WE REALLY HADN'T LOOKED AT OTHERS OTHER THAN WHAT'S ALREADY IN THERE AND WHAT YOU REQUESTED. WELL, AND I, AND I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE IS THAT, UH, USUALLY YOU DO REPLACE, UH, WITH IN KIND MATERIALS, BUT ONLY IF IT'S INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL TO BEGIN WITH. UM, IN THIS CASE, THE ALUMINUM WINDOWS WERE A LATER INAPPROPRIATE, UH, INSERTION INTO THIS BUILDING. SO, UH, SENSITIVE TO THE, THE BUDGETARY CONCERNS AND THE NATURE OF YOUR ORGANIZATION, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF, IF YOU GUYS HAVE INVESTIGATE SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVES SINCE THE VINYL DO NOT ACHIEVE THE DIMENSIONAL, UH, REQUIREMENTS, UH, FOR THICKNESSES AND, AND PROFILES OF MATERIAL. WELL, I, WE, WE HAVEN'T COME UP WITH ANYTHING, SO I'M, I'M NOT, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. RACHEL HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL WORKING WITH MY WIFE, LORI. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS YOU HAVE. WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY SURE OUTSIDE OF WHAT YOU SPECIFICALLY SPEC WHAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE ALTERNATIVES WOULD BE. MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU INDULGE ME FOR JUST ONE MORE MINUTE, UH, COREY, HAVE YOU ALL, UM, I KNOW THE CITY CAN'T BE IN THE BUSINESS OF, OF PROMOTING PARTICULAR PRODUCTS, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN PROJECTS IN THE PAST THAT HAVE USED, UH, SAY FIBERGLASS WINDOWS THAT KIND OF MEETS, UH, KIND OF THE ECONOMY SIDE OF THE REQUIREMENTS HERE. UM, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN POINT AND ASSIST THIS, UH, APPLICANT TOWARDS, SAY, AN ARRAY OF PRODUCTS, EVEN IF IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER? IF, IF THERE WAS A MOTION THAT THAT INCLUDED SORT OF A RANGE OF THINGS THAT WE COULD THEN WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO CONFIRM, MET. UM, I DO AGREE. UM, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT, UM, FIBERGLASS AND SOMETIMES ALUMINUM WINDOWS ARE ABLE TO ACHIEVE A MUCH THINNER PROFILE THAN YOU SEE WITH A VINYL WINDOW. THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE HERE. UM, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE GONNA LOOK MORE LIKE A WOOD IN TERMS OF THE DIMENSIONING. SO IT'S PROFILE THAT IS THE ISSUES OF HOW THICK THEY ARE, ARE, ARE FINAL TOO THICK, YOU'RE SAYING? TYPICALLY, YES. MR. CHAIR, THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER COMMENTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. YES, PLEASE. I, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, UH, UH, AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THERE ARE NO DIVIDING ELEMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO PANES OF GLASS OR IN EACH PANE OF GLASS. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THAT MOTION PROBABLY JUST NEEDS A LITTLE BIT OF MORE DETAILS. UM, BEFORE I DO, UH, YES, SPECIFICALLY TO THE WINDOWS. I KNOW. NUMBER 13 AND 14 PROFILE COMMISSIONER KUBE, YOU'RE GOING IN AND OUT. THAT'S EVERY OTHER WORD. EVERY OTHER WORD WE CAN HEAR. SORRY. IT'S YOUR CONNECTION. IS THIS BETTER? MUCH BETTER. I'LL JUST SAY, I DON'T KNOW. IS IT BETTER? IT IS. YES IT IS. YEAH. NOT ANYMORE , I GUESS NOW I CAN'T HEAR YOU VERY WELL. YOU WINDOW 13 AND 15, LIKE TO COMMISSIONER GRU IS TRYING TO REBOOT. YEAH, MR. CHAIR, I SUGGEST WE JUST WAIT FOR HER BECAUSE THIS [04:00:01] HAPPENED EARLIER AND SHE CAME BACK IN. UM, QUICKLY, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MOTION WAS FOR FINAL WINDOWS AS PRESENTED WITH THE STIPULATION THAT DID NOT HAVE THE INTERNAL DIVIDED LIGHTS, CORRECT? YES. YES. AND IT'S A ONE FOR ONE NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S THE SAME. JUST A TRADE OFF FOR THE, FOR THE, BECAUSE OF HARDSHIP COMMISSIONER GROUP. SO CLEAR. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. OKAY. I GOT TWO INTERNET, SO I SWITCHED INTERNET. SO LET'S SEE IF THIS IS BETTER. UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SPEAK. YES, COMMISSIONER GROUP MAY AND HAS YOUR IN THAT SECOND YET, OR NO SECOND? IT HAS NOT BEEN SECONDED YET. OKAY. WELL, MY ONLY FIRST QUESTION BEFORE I SAY THIS WINDOW, 13 AND 14 IS KIND OF ON MY WORRY. 'CAUSE THE DIMENSIONS, I MEAN, THOSE ARE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT EVEN FITTING THE PROFILE. I THINK THE APPLICANT'S GONNA RUN INTO A PROBLEM EVEN, YOU KNOW, ON THE INSIDE FRAMING, ET CETERA FOR THEIR WINDOW. 13 AND FOUR. 14. YEAH. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T KNOW HOW, IF THERE EVEN ORIGINALLY WAS A WINDOW THERE IN NUMBER 14. UM, SO MAYBE, I MEAN, ONE OPTION COULD BE THAT THE APPLICANT COMES BACK. I MEAN, IF IT, IF STATS IS OKAY WITH THE, UH, PROFILE, BUT I THINK HE'S GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK WITH ITEM 13, WINDOW 13 AND 14 BECAUSE HE'S GONNA HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER SOLUTION OR CUT IN THE SIDING OR, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN THERE. BUT, UM, AS LONG AS, UH, MR. VELAZQUEZ HAS AN EMOTION MADE SURE THAT IT FITS THE PROFILE IN OUR WINDOWS STANDARD WINDOW STIPULATION, THEN I'LL SECOND IT. UM, I, I I THINK THAT I I I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR, UH, YOUR REQUEST. I, UH, THE, THE ONLY THING, AND COREY, THIS IS JUST, UM, MR. CHAIR, UH, I'M WONDERING WHY WE HAVEN'T COME UP WITH LIKE A STANDARD DETAIL THAT WE CAN GIVE TO A PERSON WHO'S TRYING TO DO THIS. BECAUSE EVEN IT, EVEN IT, IT DOES HAVE, I MEAN, IT'S NOT BRAIN SURGERY, RIGHT? IT'S ESPECIALLY WOOD CONSTRUCTION THAT THERE'S SOME WAY TO CREATE THAT SHADOW LINE, SOME WAY TO INSET, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RULES WOULD BE IN GIVING SOMEBODY A DETAIL. RIGHT. UM, SO I I I, I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR REQUEST COMMISSIONER GROUP. I'M JUST EVEN SURE THAT I EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. OKAY. IT'S WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW. RIGHT? RIGHT NOW. SO IF IT, BUT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN SAYS 13 IS 14 OR, OR I'M, NO, I'M LOOKING AT 13 IS THE SECOND FLOOR, RIGHT? NO, WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW AND MAYBE GET THE STIPULATION WITH STANDARD WINDOW NOMENCLATURE. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS I'LL SECOND YOUR MOTION. IF YOU CAN ADD THE AMENDMENT THAT IT MATCHED IT, IT CAN ADD THAT PROFILE STANDARD WINDOW PROFILE SPECIFICATIONS, THEN I'LL ACCEPT ANOTHER MATERIAL, MAYBE COME WITH STAFF WITH THAT. I DO NOT THINK THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ON WINDOW 13 AND 14. I MAY HAVE TO COME BACK FOR WINDOW 13 AND 14. OKAY. THEN LET ME JUST ASK A CO CO CORY QUESTION. CORY, IS THAT WINDOW PROFILE ACHIEVABLE WITH THE WINDOW THAT'S BEEN BEEN PRESENTED TO US? YEAH. SEE, I DON'T WANNA, I DON'T WANNA LIKE, LIKE, LIKE SAY SOMETHING THAT GETS ME OUT OF THIS SITUATION. I WANNA SAY SOMETHING THAT HELPS TO HAVE A DEFINITIVE ANSWER THAT THEY CAN GO, MY MOTION IS BASED ON THE HARDSHIP, UH, AND, AND, UH, THAT, THAT IT'S TO APPROVE WHAT IS BEING, UH, PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. SPIRIT OF A ONE FOR ONE, NOT DOING ANY FURTHER DAMAGE. IT'S JUST MANAGING AND MAINTAINING THE, THE SECURITY OF THAT BUILDING AND, AND THE AIR. I WITHDRAW MY SECOND. OKAY. SO MOTION. WE STILL HAVE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, PLEASE. YES, PLEASE. SO I MOVE FOR APPROVAL, UH, FOR THE WINDOW REPLACEMENT, UH, BASED UPON FINDINGS A THROUGH C WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT WORK WITH STAFF TO, UH, FIND A REPLACEMENT WINDOW THAT MEETS THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS, UH, THAT ARE OUTLINED IN OUR, UH, OUR STANDARD, UH, WIDTHS AND STYLES AND THAT SORT OF RAILS AND, AND, AND STYLE WIDTHS. SO NOT SPECIFY OR DICTATING WHAT THAT REPLACEMENT MATERIAL IS. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL, I'LL [04:05:02] QUE I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? WELL, CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANT, I JUST WANNA, UH, SAY THIS, UH, UH, THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS FINANCIALLY, AND, AND THAT THE, MY FEAR IS THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT'S USED TO FORM THIS MOTION, UH, UNDERSTANDS THAT, THAT IN THE END THERE MAY BE NOTHING MO NOTHING BUT AN OPTION THAT IS $900 DOWN OR $500 OUT FROM WHERE THESE PEOPLE ARE. SO I SECOND THE MOTION SO THAT WE CAN GET IN SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. BUT MOST DEFINITELY, I WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT MY, MY PERSPECTIVE IS THAT YOU SHOULD RESPECT THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OF THIS APPLICANT. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT COMMENT. UM, AND I APPRECIATE THE SECOND, AND, UM, I JUST, I, I KNOW THROUGH OTHER CASES THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED AND PROVED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SUITABLE, UH, REPLACEMENT WINDOWS. THEY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE WOOD OR ALUMINUM CLOUD WOOD WINDOWS, BUT THEY WERE, UH, THEY MET THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE STYLES AND RAILS AND WIDTHS AND PROFILES AND REVEALS. AND, UH, THAT IS ACHIEVABLE. AND I THINK STAFF CAN HELP GUIDE THIS CLIENT TOWARDS AN ECONOMICAL, UH, SOLUTION. AND THE REASON WHY I'M NOT SPECIFYING MATERIALS IS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE HARDSHIP ISSUE. THANK, THANK YOU FOR THE CATION. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH? AYE. GIBBS A QUEZ. AYE. AREOLA? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. APPROVE. AYE. BUT SIR, AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. WE SURE APPRECIATE IT. OKAY, ITEM 29. ITEM NUMBER MR. CHAIRMAN, ARE WE STILL ENDING AT SEVEN 30? UH, WE'VE GOT 1, 2, 3, 4 MORE CASES TO HEAR TODAY. UM, WILL WE LOSE YOU AT, WILL WE LOSE THE QUORUM AT SEVEN 30? I WILL BE LEAVING AT SEVEN 30. OKAY. WILL WE LOSE THE QUORUM? COREY? UM, IS COMMISSIONER FISH STILL WITH US? YES. I'LL TRY TO GET THROUGH THEM ALL THEN. WE SHOULD HAVE SIX. OKAY. THANK YOU. [29. 21-2241 Address/Description: 112 E PECAN ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-119 RIO District: RIO-3 Applicant: ZABRINA SILVA/COMET SIGNS LLC Request: Signage City Council Dist.: 1] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 29, CASE NUMBER 20 21 1 19 AT ONE 12 EAST PECAN. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE AN EXISTING BUILDING NAME, MONUMENT SIGN WITH NEW MULTI-TENANT MONUMENT SIGN FEATURING 70 FEET IN HEIGHT. ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION AND ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON FINDING D THROUGH D WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION THAT THE PROPOSED SIGN HEIGHT SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE PROPOSED SEVEN FEET TO NO TALLER THAN SIX FEET IF APPROVED BY THE H D R C. THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OTHER U D C REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNAGE, I HAVE THE APPLICANT'S, UH, CARTER ON THE LINE REPRESENTING COMMENT SIGNED. UH, CARTER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE STIPULATION ABOUT THE REDUCTION OF HEIGHT? IS THE APPLICANT THERE? I THINK WE ARE MUTED AGAIN. CARTER, CAN YOU, CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND SPEAK? THERE WE GO. YOU LOSE THE APPLICANT. UH, YOU MIGHT BE, UH, MUTED FROM YOUR PHONE. UH, BUT WE'RE READY FOR, FOR YOU MR. CARRA. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PRESS STAR SIX. UH, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND SPEAK. GO AHEAD MR. CARTER. WE CAN HEAR YOU. I, I DON'T THINK WE CAN HEAR HIM. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I, UH, BELIEVE THAT WE, UH, POSTPONED THIS CASE. WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE AND COME BACK WHEN, UH, TECHNICAL [04:10:01] DIFFICULTIES ARE OVERCOME. UH, AND MR. MR CHAIR, I'D ALSO LIKE TO, TO JUST NOTE THAT, THAT THE PIECE OF THIS SIGN THAT IS OVER SIX FEET IS VERY MINIMAL. UH, I DON'T SEE WHY WE COULDN'T ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DISPROVE IT. WE'RE, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THAT PIECE THAT SAYS WEST END. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SIGN AS A WHOLE. THAT THAT WOULD BE SIX. SO I, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THIS SIGN SUBMITTED THIS COMMISSIONER GROUP. I'LL SECOND. I MEAN, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON IT, BUT I DO AGREE WITH, UM, COMMISSIONER VELASQUE. I MEAN, THE GUIDELINES DO SAY THAT THE SIGN SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN SEVEN FEET. UM, IF THE TOTAL SIGN WAS SEVEN FEET OF HEIGHT, I PROBABLY WOULD'VE AN ISSUE. BUT I THINK THIS MINIMIZE A, THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN, IT'S A CORNER. IT'S VERY OPEN LANDSCAPING. UM, IF WE GO BACK, UM, AND THERE'S SOME TREES THAT ACTUALLY ALSO ARE KIND OF LIKE AROUND THAT SIGN. IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXISTING, UM, I SUPPORT THE MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. FISH. UH, FISH STEPPED AWAY. I APOLOGIZE. GIBBS AYE. VELASQUEZ. AYE. AREOLA? AYE. CARPENTER. AYE GROUP. AYE THAT AYE. MOTION CARRIES. I BELIEVE EDWARD HAS THE APPLICANT FOR ITEM 30. AYE? YES. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER [30.21-2253 Address/Description: 123 GORMAN ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-105 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Eduardo Quintana/Best Concept Renovations Request: Exterior modifications, fenestration modifications, column replacement, window replacement, construction of a rear addition City Council Dist.: 2] 30 H D R C. CASE NUMBER 2021. 1 0 5. 1 23 GORMAN. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE. PERFORM REHABILITATIVE SCOPES OF WORK TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE, INCLUDING SIDING, REPAIR AS NEEDED. TWO. REPLACE ALL EXISTING WINDOWS WITH ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD. WINDOWS THREE. CREATE A WINDOW OPENING ON THE WEST, THAT IS THE LEFT ELEVATION. FOUR. REMOVE AN EXISTING SIDE YARD, FRONT FACING DOOR. FIVE. REMOVE TWO EXISTING WINDOW OPENINGS ON THE EAST, THAT IS THE RIGHT POSE SIDE AND INSTALL A SLIDING GLASS DOOR. SIX. REPLACE TWO FRONT PORCH COLUMNS AND SEVEN, CONSTRUCT A REAR ADDITION TO FEATURE 388 SQUARE FEET. TO FEATURE MATERIALS THAT ARE MATCHED THAT ARE TO MATCH THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE. REHABILITATIVE SCOPES OF WORK DECIDING AS NEEDED. WITH THE STIPULATION THAT ALL REPAIR WORK IS DONE IN KIND AND THAT NO WHOLESALE REPLACEMENT OCCUR, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER TWO. WINDOW REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING D STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT REPAIR ALL EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS WHERE WINDOWS ARE BEYOND REPAIR OR MISSING. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT A WOOD WINDOW BE INSTALLED AND MATCH THE PROFILE OF THE, OF THE ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER THREE. THE INSTALLATION OF THE NEW WINDOW ON THE WEST THAT IS THE LEFT BESIDE BASED ON FINDING E STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES FENESTRATION REMAIN AS IT HISTORICALLY EXISTS. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FOUR. DOOR REMOVAL IS NOTED IN FINDING F. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT ALL ORIGINAL WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS ON THE FRONT AND SIDE TO SIDE BE MAINTAINED. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE. WINDOW REMOVAL AND DOOR INSTALLATION ON THE EAST, THAT IS THE RIGHT FAC SIDE IS NOTED IN FINDING. E STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT ALL ORIGINAL WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS ON THE FRONT AND SIDE FAC SIDE BE MAINTAINED. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER SIX. COLUMN REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING G. AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REAR EDITION BASED ON FINDINGS H THROUGH K WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT WOULD OR ALUMINUM PLAID WOOD WINDOWS BE INSTALLED THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND CONSTRUCTION. AND TWO, THE APPLICANT, UH, ADD A VISUAL BREAK. UH, THE APPLICANT ASSURE THAT A VISUAL BREAK IS PRESENT ON THE WEST. THAT IS THE LEFT ELEVATION. SEPARATE THE ADDITION FROM THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. UH, I HAVE THE APPLICANT, MR. OCTAVIO VER MONTEZ ON THE LINE. UH, AND I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT, UM, HAS, UH, MODIFIED THEIR PROPOSAL, UH, THAT HE'LL SPEAK ON. I BELIEVE THAT HE IS, UH, GOING TO AGREE WITH MANY, IF NOT ALL STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS NOW, MR. MONTZ? YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU HEAR ME WELL? HELLO? YES, PLEASE. YES. HELLO? HELLO. HEY. OKAY, CAN I YES. THANK YOU, EDWARD? YES. UH, FORTUNATELY THE CLIENT, UH, AGREED WITH ALL THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS RECOMMENDED, UH, WILL BE DONE AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE FLOOR PLAN THAT WE SENT PREVIOUSLY TO THE MEETING. EXCELLENT. HELLO, MR. CHAIRMAN? MR. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES. YES, SIR. SO BASED UPON THE, UH, COMMENTS OF THESE, UH, APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. ASK US A SECOND. WE HAVE MOTION A SECOND. I BELIEVE WE DID HAVE ONE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT. YEAH. JUST QUICKLY NOTING FROM SCOTT ALBERT THAT, UM, HIS GROUP SUPPORTS STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. THANK YOU. UH, ANY DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. [04:15:01] UM, FISH. AYE. GIBBS AYE. QUEZ AYE. AREOLA. AYE. CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP. AYE BET, SIR. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER [32. 21-2321 Address/Description: 1003 N HACKBERRY ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-118 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Lawrence Briseno/MUNOZ LARRY GENE Request: Change in roofing material, front yard fencing City Council Dist.: 2] 32. CASE NUMBER 20 21 1 11 OR SORRY, ONE 18 AT 1003 NORTH BURY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, REPLACE THE STANDING SEA METAL ROOF WITH A NEW COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF, AND TWO, INSTALL A FOUR FOOT TALL ROT, IRON FRONT YARD FENCE ALONG LAMAR AND NORTH BERRY STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE. CHANGING THE ROOF MATERIAL FROM STANDING STEAM TO SHINGLE IN KIND REPLACEMENT MAY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED WITH THE STANDARD STIPULATIONS FOR METAL ROOFS. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO FRONT YARD FENCING AS PROPOSED BASED ON FINDING D BUT MR. LAWRENCE, THE APPLICANT IS ON THE LINE. UH, THE PROPERTY, UH, DOES SHOW EVIDENCE OF A SHAKE SHINGLE ROOF UNDERNEATH THE CURRENT METAL ROOF. HOWEVER, STAFF'S BINDING IS THAT METAL ROOFS ARE SIGNIFICANT TO THE, UM, THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANT AND SHOULD BE MAINTAINED. UH, MR. LAWRENCE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK, UH, DIRECTLY TO WHY YOU BELIEVE, UH, CHANGING FROM A METAL ROOF TO THE COMPOSITION SHINGLE SHOULD BE APPROVED TODAY? YES, SIR. UH, THANK YOU. UH, I THINK THAT I AM TRYING, UM, AS WELL AS Y'ALL TO PRESERVE THESE OLDER HISTORICAL HOMES AND MAKE 'EM LOOK LIKE WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY WERE BUILT. UH, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO. SO THE WOOD SHAKE ROOF IS THE ORIGINAL ROOF THAT WAS THERE THEN MCCAIN METAL THAT THEY PUT ON TOP OF IT. UH, AND IT ALSO HAS AN ASPHALT ROOF THAT'S ON THE FIRST STORY. SO I KIND OF WANNA JUST DO MIMIC WHAT YOU, WHAT IT, HOW IT WAS FIRST BUILT AND, UH, PUT A WOOD SHAKE, I MEAN, A TYPE OF, OF IN TIME MATERIAL IN MY OPINION. UH, THIS, UH, 30 YEAR DIMENSIONAL ROOF THAT THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET AND SEVERAL HOUSES AROUND IT. UH, SO I KIND OF JUST KIND OF WANNA MATCH THAT AND SOMETHING THAT'S KIND OF, UH, IN MY OPINION WOULD LOOK LIKE THE, THE ORIGINAL HOME WHEN IT WAS BUILT. AND LAUREN, IF YOU COULD GO TO PAGE 13, UH, THAT WILL SHOW THE SHAKE SHINGLES AS WELL AS THE DIMENSIONAL SHINGLES THAT'S PROPOSED TODAY. COMMISSIONERS, WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS, UM, FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIG NUITY HISTORIC DISTRICT, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS IF THE METAL ROOF IS FAILING DUE TO LEAKS AND AN APPLICANT WISHES TO REVERT TO AN ORIGINAL WOOD SHINGLE ROOF. THERE ARE MANY PRODUCTS AVAILABLE THAT ARE MORE ACCURATE SUBSTITUTION THAN A COMPOSITION SHINGLE MATERIAL THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE THICKNESS AND SPACING OF ORIGINAL WOOD SHINGLE. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. MI MR. CHAIR? UH, YES SIR. COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ, I, I AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT. UH, AND, AND IF IT'S, IT'S ABOUT ACHIEVING THE DEEPEST DIMENSION OR THE STRONGEST SHADOW LINE, I BELIEVE THAT STAFF CAN DIRECT THE, THE APPLICANT IN THAT DIRECTION. AND I, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO, TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR DIMENSIONAL SHINGLE ROOF REPLACEMENT WITH, UH, UH, THROUGH CONSULTATION WITH STAFF TO ACHIEVE THE HIGHEST, UH, GRADE OF, OF, UH, SHADOW LINE. DOES YOUR MOTION ALSO INCLUDE THE, UH, FENCE? NO, MR. CHAIR I, THAT WENT RIGHT OVER MY HEAD. ALL I HEARD WAS ABOUT THE ROOF. I, I, I, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE THEN? WELL, YES, THEN YES. IF STAFF IS WITH IT, THEN MAKES IT EASY. OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH I SECOND MOTION. AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL PLEASE. FISH. AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. AREOLA? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. RUB. I BELIEVE WE LOST HER. AND FETZER NAY. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, WE ACTUALLY ARE ON OUR LAST CASE NOW. ITEM 34. [34. 21-2261 Address/Description: 362 E HUISACHE AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-091 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Marc Franco/Trinity Foundation And Construction Request: Rear addition with deck, front porch and fenestration modifications City Council Dist.: 1] UH, I'M GETTING THE CALLER ON THE LINE, BUT FOR THE RECORD, THE, UH, APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO STIPULATIONS. SO, ONE MOMENT. UM, WHILE WE IS GETTING THE APPLICANT, WHY DON'T I GO AHEAD AND READ THE LETTERS THAT WE RECEIVED. UM, THE FIRST IS FROM PAUL KINISON, THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. CONCURS WITH CITY STAFF O CITY'S O H P STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF [04:20:01] OUR OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION. UM, THE NEXT COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO, CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK AT 360 2 EAST RESEARCH. ADDITIONALLY, WE DO NOT FIND RECORD OF ANY PERMITS PULLED FOR THE WORK ALREADY COMPLETED. WE ARE WE STILL, ARE YOU STILL MUTED? YOU'RE READY? UH, NO, I'M, I HAVE TO CALL A SECOND, SECOND NUMBER ONE MOMENT. OKAY. YEAH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE STILL THERE. YES, I AM. UH, NEITHER NUMBERS ARE PICKING UP. SO I'M CALLING THE FIRST NUMBER ONE MORE TIME. OKAY. UM, DO YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT TO HAVE STIPULATIONS IN WRITING? HEAR ME? YES. SORRY, COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THE DELAY. I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. AND WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THE FULL REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION FOR PROCEDURE? ARE YOU REFERRING, ARE YOU TALKING TO LEE? YES. CAN YOU? OKAY. UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 34, CASE NUMBER 20 21 0 91 AT SIX, UH, 360 2 E ATCH. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, REMOVE THE FRONT ROOF OVERHANG TO INSTALL A NEW SHED ROOF PORCH. TWO, REPLACE THE NON-ORIGINAL FRONT DOOR WITH A NEW WINDOW AND THREE, CONSTRUCT A 504 SQUARE FOOT REAR ADDITION WITH A 120 SQUARE FOOT WOOD DECK. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE FRONT PORCH MODIFICATION. THE FRONT PORCH SHOULD BE RESTORED TO ITS PREVIOUS CONFIGURATION RATHER THAN FURTHERING THE NON-CONFORMING FRONT PORCH EDITION. TWO. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO, REPLACEMENT OF THE NON-ORIGINAL FRONT DOOR WITH A NEW WINDOW WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS FOR STANDARD WINDOWS THREE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REAR ADDITION WITH WOOD DECK, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT A VERTICAL TRIM PIECE SHOULD BE INCORPORATED TO THE SIDE ELEVATIONS BETWEEN NEW AND OLD FORMS, THAT THE WOOD SIDING PROFILE SHOULD MATCH OR RELATE TO THE PRIMARY HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND THE STANDARD WINDOWS SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOWS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND FINALLY, STAFF ALSO STIPULATES THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESSES THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE SUBMITTED ELEVATION DRAWINGS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT NO EXISTING WINDOW OPENINGS ON THE SIDE ELEVATIONS OF THE PRIMARY HISTORIC STRUCTURE ARE REMOVED OR ALTERED UNLESS FORMALLY REQUESTED AND APPROVED. AND THAT NO FRONT FACADE GRADE CHANGES OR FRONT DOOR STEPS ARE INSTALLED UNLESS FORMALLY REQUESTED OR APPROVED. SO FOR THE RECORD, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO ALL THE STIPULATIONS. UH, IT JUST CAME LATE, UM, OVER THE WEEKEND. MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD ASK THE APPLICANT JUST TO CONFIRM THAT HE IS AGREED TO STAFF STIPULATIONS. UM, SO YES, I, I HAVE, I HAVE AGREED TO RECOMMENDATIONS PUT FORTH BY THE STAFF WITH THE STIPULATION. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH THAT I CAN, UH, MOVE THE ITEM, UM, UNLESS [04:25:01] THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL SECOND. WELL, I, LET ME, LET ME WORK ON A MOTION BEFORE YOU SECOND IT. UM, I MOVE FOR DENIAL OF ITEM ONE, APPROVAL OF ITEMS TWO AND THREE WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND ADDITIONALLY STIPULATE THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESSED THE DISCREPANCIES, UH, IN THE SUBMITTED DRAWINGS AND THAT INCLUDED STIPULATION FIVE AND SIX. I, I, UM, AGREE WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. I JUST HAVE A, A QUESTION, UM, REGARDING ITEM ONE. UH, IF WE, AS LONG AS, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, AS LONG AS WE RESTORE THE, UM, ROOF LINE TO ITS ORIGINAL, UM, LEVEL AND, UH, WE DON'T MODIFY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE RESTORE IT TO, TO ITS PRE PREVIOUS FORM AND THAT THAT'S WHAT ITEM ONE IS REFERRING TO. YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. YES. THAT COULD BE WORKED ADMINISTRATIVELY WITH STAFF. OKAY. AND IN REGARDS, IN REGARDS TO THE, UM, DISCREPANCIES IN THE SUBMITTED ELEVATION DRAWINGS, UM, WOULD I JUST SUBMIT THAT TO STAFF FOR THEIR, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL? UM, YES HE WOULD. OR WOULD THAT HAVE TO? OKAY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. ISH. AYE. GIBBS? AYE. QUEZ? AYE. AREOLA? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. RU HAS LEFT. EXCUSE ME. AND FETZER. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL ON THE AGENDA. THREE OF THEM HAVE BEEN POSTPONED AS NOTED. UM, WE HAVE MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH 3RD. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL, UH, BASED R C D MINUTES FROM MARCH 3RD, 2021 AS SUBMITTED. I SECOND GI, I SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? SAY AYE. AYE. UH, LANDMARK DESIGNATION CASE FOR DISCUSSION? YES. THANK YOU. THE MOTION TO ADJOURN MOTION. MR. MR. CHAIRMAN, DID WE NEED TO, UM, ELIMINATE OUR BACKUP MEETING THAT WE HAD SCHEDULED? UM, NO ACTION IS NEEDED. WE JUST, NO ACTION. WE JUST WON'T POST AN AGENDA. THANK YOU. AND WE'LL, WE'LL NOTE IT AS, AS NOT HAPPENING ON THE WEBSITE. MUCH APPRECIATED. THANK YOU. MOTION TO ADJOURN? YES. MOTION. SO MOVED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH AND HAPPY ST. PATRICK'S DAY. THANK YOU EVERYONE. * 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.