* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:06] OKAY, JEFF, WE'RE LIVE. [Roll Call] MIGHT HAVE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. THERE WE GO. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7TH, 2021. I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. FERNANDEZ ISH. HERE. GIBBS. HERE. VELAZQUEZ. HERE. AREOLA CARPENTER. HERE. RUBE. HERE. BOWMAN ZER. HERE. LIFO HERE. UM, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, WE DO HAVE A BRIEF, UH, ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING TRANSLATION SERVICES FOR THE MEETING. . THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CAN [Chairman's Statement] WE PLEASE HAVE THE CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT? THE HISTORIC AND 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 ON ALL RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENTS CONCERNING ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS FOR PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS FOR LANDMARKS ON CITY PROPERTY AND THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY AND FOR DEMOLITIONS. AND CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, THE COMMISSION SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CAN BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. 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 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. APP CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR WORK APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE EMAILED TO YOU WITHIN 10 DAYS. NO WORK OF ANY TYP IS TO BE STARTED WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROPRIATE CITY PERMITS AFTER A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC RESERVATION. AT THIS TIME, I'LL ASK O H P STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TODAY'S MEETING. I AM MUTED, SO I'M GONNA START OVER. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. UM, WE'RE GONNA START BY LOOKING AT THE CASE LIST. UM, FOR TODAY'S MEETING. LAUREN, IF YOU CAN SCROLL TO THE LEFT A LITTLE BIT SO WE CAN SEE EVERYTHING. UM, THE ONLY CHANGE ON TODAY'S AGENDA IS ITEM 27 HAS BEEN POSTPONED, UM, AND WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY. UM, OTHER THAN THAT, I WILL BEGIN BY READING ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. UM, WE [Public Comment] RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THOSE AS WELL AS A FEW, UH, LIVE CALLS. UM, SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THOSE FIRST. UM, AND THEN IF ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR WISH TO CONSIDER THOSE INDIVIDUALLY, YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO PULL THEM. UM, SO FIRST COMMENTS ARE FOR ITEM FOUR, UM, 2 25, KING WILLIAM. UM, THIS COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS. THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO CONTINUES TO OBJECT TO THE SCALE AND SCOPE OF THE ADDITIONS PROPOSED FOR THE HOUSE AT 2 25. KING WILLIAM, THE PROJECT IS CURRENTLY DESIGNED, CREATES A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH, WITH THIS HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. THE PARKING PAD IN THE FRONT YARD ON KING WILLIAMS STREET SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS NO OTHER PROPERTY IN KING WILLIAM ALLOWS FOR THIS PROPERTY, FOR THIS PARKING CONDITION. UM, NEXT WE HAVE COMMENTS FOR ITEM 12, UM, 2 0 4 EAST SATCH. THIS COMES FROM PAUL KINISON, THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION'S ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. CONCURS WITH THE CITY'S OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE HISTORIC FIRE DAMAGED HOUSE BE REPAIRED AND RESTORED. WE RECOMMEND THAT ANY REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION OF THIS HOUSE BE DENIED. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS ITEM. WE ALSO HAVE A VOICEMAIL FROM TONY GARCIA, SO BEAR WITH US. WE'LL HAVE TO, I THINK, RESHARE IN ORDER TO HEAR THE AUDIO ON THAT. MY NAME IS TONY GARCIA. I LIVE AT 2 43 EAST ATCH AVENUE. [00:05:01] I'M ON THE ADVISORY BOARD OF THE MONTEA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. OUR COMMENTS ARE FOR ITEM NUMBER 12 2 0 4 EAST ATCH AVENUE. WE SUPPORT O P'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD FOR THE REPAIR OF 2 0 4 EAST ATCH AVENUE. OVER THE YEARS, NUMEROUS HOMES AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF MONTE VISTA HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED FOR VARIOUS REASONS. WE BELIEVE THIS HOME CAN BE REPAIRED AND SHOULD BE REPAIRED, SO IT SO THAT IT CONTINUES TO ADD HISTORICAL VALUE TO THE EAST SATCH NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE MONTH OF VISTA HISTORIC DISTRICT AS A WHOLE. WE REQUEST THE COMMISSION TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. GREAT. UM, NEXT IS ITEM 15, 1 0 3 EAST CAROLINA. THIS COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO, CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS AND STIPULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK AT 1 0 3 EAST CAROLINA. UM, THE NEXT, WE HAVE A LIVE CALLER THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR ITEM 25 1 5 WICK. UM, WE'VE TRIED A COUPLE TIMES TO CALL HER LISA LIN WITH THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION. UM, I WILL NOTE THAT WHAT SHE WAS GOING TO READ IS IN A LETTER FORMAT IN YOUR PACKET, SO YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION STATEMENT 4 5 1 5 WIX. UM, WE'LL TRY ONE MORE TIME. UM, IF NOT, WE'LL HAVE TO MOVE ON. UM, THE NEXT IS FOR ITEM 21, UM, 22 1 9 WEST WOODLAWN. UM, THIS COMES FROM ALEJANDRO SOTO. THE WOODLAWN LAKE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE FENCE PROJECT AS PROPOSED. AND LASTLY, WE HAVE ITEM 22 4 1 4 RERA. UH, PATTY ZIONS, THE CON, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK AT 4 1 4 RERA THE PROPOSED OR THE WORK DONE WITHOUT PROPER PERMITTING REMOVED CHARACTER FINDING FEATURES AND SHOULD BE RESTORED PRIOR TO ANY ADDITIONAL WORK. UM, AND I'LL NOTE THAT THAT IS INCLUDED IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT ITEM. UM, SO [CONSENT AGENDA] THOSE ARE ITEMS, UM, ON CONSENT. UM, WE DO HAVE A RECUSAL FROM COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR ITEM FOUR, UM, AND I BELIEVE HE INTENDS TO RECUSE FROM THE FULL VOTE ON CONSENT ITEMS. UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS NEED TO PULL ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION BASED ON THE COMMENTS? IF NOT, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I I DO HAVE ONE COURT. I'M SORRY. COULDN'T GET ON UNMUTED. UM, MR. COMMISSIONER? YEAH, GO AHEAD. OH, YES SIR. COMMISSIONER GIS, UM, I'D LIKE TO PULL, UM, ITEM 10 PLEASE. THANK YOU. OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER CASES TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT. AGENDA. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS ONE THROUGH 11 THROUGH 22 WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. I'LL SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FISH. AYE GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ. AYE. UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER HAS RECUSED GROUP. AYE. FETZER. AYE LI AYE. MOTION CARRIES. UM, SO THAT'S GONNA BRING US TO [10. Address/Description: 111 BOSTON HDRC Case No.: 2019-463 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: LINDLEE LLC Request: Construction of a two-story residential structure City Council Dist.: 2 10.] ITEM TEN ONE ELEVEN BOSTON. UM, I BELIEVE EDWARD'S WORKING TO GET THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. EDWARD, JUST GO AHEAD AND MUTE YOURSELF WHEN YOU'RE READY. EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I'M HERE NOW WITH THE APPLICANT. UH, MR. ROBERT LEE. THANK. COMMISSIONER GIBSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DO. UM, THANK YOU SIR FOR, FOR JOINING US TODAY, UM, WITH YOUR, UM, ITEM ON THE 1 1 1 BOSTON. I'M GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE ITEM, REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH OF CONCERN, BUT WANTED TO ASK CONCERNING THE, UM, THE SECOND STORY PATIO COMPONENTS, UM, IS JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT PORTION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE DESIGN. SO WANTED TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS, UM, ON THAT PLEASE. SURE. SO THAT IS A, A WESTERN FACING, UH, BALCONY. WE HAVE, WE ARE UNDER CONTRACT WITH AN OWNER AND THEY WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE VIEWS OF TO THE WEST OF DOWNTOWN. UM, SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN. AND WHAT WE DID IS WE, UH, CONCEALED THAT BALCONY. UH, THERE IS A TREE LINE TO THE WEST, SO [00:10:01] IT IS FAIRLY CONCEALED FROM THE STREET AND ALSO THE ROOF MASSING THAT IS OVER THE KITCHEN, WHICH, UH, SITS IN FOREGROUND OF THAT BALCONY. THERE'S ALSO A, A FRAMED WALL THAT IS WRAPPED IN SIDING SO THAT YOU CANNOT SEE ANY RAILING OR ANY OF THE, THE BALCONY FROM THE STREET FACADE. AND WE FEEL THAT IT IS SET BACK FAR ENOUGH THAT IT, UH, IT IS CONCEALED. AND SO ALL OF THE, UM, THE CHARACTER OF QUALITY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO IMBUE IN THIS PROPERTY IS, IS KEPT IN PLACE AND WILL ENHANCE THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS, UM, WHEN IT COMES TO THIS DESIGN, HAVE YOU, UM, GOT INPUT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, FROM THE, UM, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS OR ANY OTHER NEIGHBORS CONCERNING THE DESIGN AND AND ARE THEY GENERALLY, UM, ACCEPTING OF THAT? SO IT FITS INTO THE CHARACTER OF THE, THE HOME AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD? SO WHEN WE STARTED THE PROCESS, WE UM, WE WORKED WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. IT WAS HEADED BY AN ARCHITECT. UH, SINCE THOSE MEETINGS WE, WE MET SEVERAL TIMES AND, AND DID, UH, DISCUSS WITH THEM WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE, UH, WHAT THEY FELT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS LACKING. AND, UM, THEY WERE VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. THEY DIDN'T WANT, UH, VERY MUCH DENSITY. UM, BUT SUBSEQUENT TO, UH, ARE THOSE MEETINGS THAT WE HAD EARLY ON, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD CHANGED. SO OUR, OUR, ALL OF OUR WORK WAS DONE WITH THE PRIOR BOARD. SURE. GOTCHA. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. UM, THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. UH, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ OR SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. GRO AYE THAT SIR? AYE LI AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OKAY, THAT IS GONNA BRING US TO ITEM 23, [23. Address/Description: 255 BRAHAN HDRC Case No.: 2020-577 Historic District Name: Westfort Applicant: Cy Goudge/JCG Homes, LLC Request: Construction of six, 2-story residential structures City Council Dist.: 2] WHICH IS OUR FIRST ITEM ON INDIVIDUAL. UM, THAT'S ALSO MR. HALL'S CASE, SO HE'S GONNA GET THAT APPLICANT ON THE LINE NOW. ALRIGHT, CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? YES, I GOT YOU. OKAY, PERFECT. UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 23 H V R C, CASE NUMBER 20 25 77 2 55 BRA. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT FOUR TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND TWO, TWO STORY TEST RESTRUCTURES FEATURING GROUND LEVEL PARKING AND SECOND, SECOND LEVEL LIVING SPACE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH SS WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION. ONE THAT ALL SIDING FEATURE A FOUR INCH EXPOSURE AND THICKNESS OF THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH MIRE CORNERS OR CORNER TRIM. AND THE SMOOTH FINISH COLUMNS SHOULD BE SIX INCHES SQUARE STANDING CEMENT METAL ROOF SHOULD FEATURE SMOOTH PANELS THAT ARE 18 TO 21 INCHES WIDE. TEAMS THAT ARE ONE TO TWO INCHES IN HEIGHT, A CRIMP RIDGE TEAM OR A LOW PROFILE RIDGE CAP IN A STANDARD GAL IN COLOR. TWO, THAT ALL WOOD WINDOWS MEET STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION IS NOTED IN FINDING M AND THE APPLICABLE CITATIONS. THREE, THAT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IS SCREENED FROM VIEW AT THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR THAT A DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN BE SUBMITTED TO O H P STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AND FIVE, THAT THE APPLICANT ELIMINATE THE PROPOSED PARKING WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE AT THE CORNER OF BRAHAM AND HAYWOOD RESULTING IN GARAGE DOORS WITHIN A PRIMARY STRUCTURE THAT FACES THE RIGHT OF WAY. UH, THERE'S ALSO CASE COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE REQUIREMENT OF A FOUNDATION SETBACK INSPECTION AS WELL AS A ROOFING INSPECTION. UH, THE APPLICANT MR. S ON THE LINE NOW. HELLO. UM, I KNOW THIS IS ABOUT THE 18TH TIME Y'ALL SEEN THIS PROJECT, BUT, UM, I THINK WE'RE GETTING CLOSE. UH, WE, UM, WE'LL AGREE, WE AGREE TO ALL STAFF STIPULATIONS ONE THROUGH, UH, FOUR, UM, STIPULATION FIVE, UH, WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE, UM, DURING THE APPROVAL AND IT WAS, UM, APPROVED TO, TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED PARKING TO BE WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE AND WE OBVIOUSLY AGREED TO [00:15:01] THE FOUNDATION INSPECTION AND THE ROOFING INSPECTION. UM, SO, UM, THAT'S, I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF PRESENTATION TODAY BECAUSE I THINK IT'S JUST, UH, WE AGREE TO EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN, WERE ALREADY DISCUSSED DURING THE CONCEPTUAL. SO, UM, IF I THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, LEMME KNOW. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UH, BEFORE WE GO TO COMMISSION QUESTIONS, WE DO HAVE COMMENTS FROM YEP. JUST ONE TO BE READ. UM, FROM PATTY ZIONS, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK AT FOUR ONE OH, I'M SORRY, THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT ONE, BUT IT IS FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY. UM, THEY CONTINUED TO OBJECT TO THIS LATEST DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE PROPOSED UNITS CONTRADICT THE GOAL OF THE 2003 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH SEEKS TO REDUCE DENSITY ON LOTS WHERE THE ORIGINAL USE OF SINGLE FAMILY, BECAUSE OF PROPOSED REDUCTIONS IN LOT COVERAGE AND DENSITY DO NOT ADEQUATE ADEQUATELY CONFORM TO THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OR THE INTENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. WE URGE THE COMMISSION TO DENY THIS REQUEST. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. UM, GIVEN THE, UH, APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO, UH, ADHERE TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ONE THROUGH FOUR AND, UM, I BELIEVE ITEM FIVE WAS A APPOINTED DISCUSSION DURING A PREVIOUS D R C IN THE, UH, THE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL INCLUDED THAT BECAUSE THERE IS, UH, EXISTING EXAMPLES OF GARAGES FACING THAT PARTICULAR STREET. UH, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS ONE THROUGH FOUR. MAY ASK A A SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE FISH? AYE. GIBBS AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. CARPENTER, I AYE GROUP? AYE THAT SIR? AYE LI AYE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 24. [24. Address/Description: 520 LEIGH ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-133 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: Scott Jones/LABOR STREET COMMONS LLC Request: Construction of a multistory residential structure, site modifications City Council Dist.: 1] STEF, ARE YOU THERE? THANK YOU. YEAH, THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. ITEM NUMBER 24 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 1 3 3. ADDRESS, FIVE 20 LAY STREET. THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT THE LOT. ADDRESS FIVE 20 LAY STREET STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND FINAL APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH R STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE H, D OR C ONE, THAT THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE BE REDUCED IN HEIGHT AND MASSING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT. SUBORDINATES PRIMARY STRUCTURES AS NOTED IN FINDINGS F AND G TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT UTILIZED FOUNDATION HEIGHTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES. THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE FORMS THAT ARE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING HISTORIC CONTEXT. AND FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATED APPROPRIATE TRADITIONAL WINDOW SIZES AND PROPORTIONS AND MODIFY THE OVERALL FENESTRATION PATTERN AS NOTED IN FINDING K. IF H G R C FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT AND RECOMMENDS FINAL APPROVAL, F RECOMMENDS THAT THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS APPLY. ONE, THAT ANY STUCCO ELEMENTS FEATURE A TRUE TROWEL APPLICATION AND FINISH IN LIEU OF EFIS OR A SIMILAR PRODUCT. TWO, THAT ALL WOOD AND OR COMPOSITE SIDING FEATURE A MAXIMUM EXPOSURE OF FOUR TO SIX INCHES, A THICKNESS OF THREE QUARTER INCHES, MITRE CORNERS, AND A SMOOTH FINISH. NO FULL GRAIN IS PERMISSIBLE. A FINAL PRODUCT SPECIFICATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMIT WINDOW SPECIFICATIONS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL THAT MEET OUR STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE RECOMMENDATION FOUR, THAT ANY DRIVEWAY MODIFICATIONS ON THE PARCEL ADDRESS FIVE 20 LEE OR ADJACENT PARCELS AS REQUIRED FOR ACCESS BE A MAXIMUM OF 10 FEET AND WIDTH AT THE STREET FRONTAGE WITH A CONCRETE APRON THAT FLARES NO WIDER THAN 12 FEET. AND FIVE THAT THE STANDING SEA METAL ROOF MEETS OUR STIPULATIONS AS LISTED IN THE RECOMMENDATION IN ONE CASE COMMENT, ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED ON ANY ADJACENT PARCEL OF PARCELS THAT MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION IS NOT APPROVED AND REQUIRES A SEPARATE REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. ANY APPROVALS ARE EXCLUSIVELY TIED TO IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PARCEL TRACKED OR PROPERTY ADDRESS FIVE 20 LAY OR LEE STREET. AND I DO HAVE THE OWNER SCOTT ON THE LINE. SCOTT, DID YOU WANNA INTRODUCE YOURSELF? UH, YES. UM, THANKS FOR LISTENING TO ME AGAIN. WE, UM, I'M SCOTT JONES. THIS IS, UH, MY PERSONAL RESIDENCE. UH, I BROUGHT IT BEFORE, UM, I GUESS A MONTH, A MONTH AND A HALF AGO. AND THEN WE, UH, MET THROUGH DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND I THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED EVERYTHING THAT WAS REQUESTED. UH, IN TERMS OF THE ROOF LINES. UM, WE'VE REDUCED THE MASSING BY ADDING, UH, SOME ADDITIONAL FENESTRATIONS, UH, SOME ADDITIONAL DETAILS, UM, GOTTEN [00:20:01] RID OF ANY FLAT ROOFING WHATSOEVER. UM, AND I THINK I'VE ALSO, WE ADDED A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE, UH, FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION, UM, WHICH SHOWS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF IT, UH, FINISHED FLOOR IS GONNA PROBABLY BE WITHIN SIX INCHES. UH, PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN SIX INCHES HIGHER. UM, BUT THAT IT SITS 150 FEET BACK, SO YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE ANY DIFFERENCE. UM, AND THE, AND THE RESULTING DIFFERENCE MAINLY IS BECAUSE OF, UH, OUR GRADING AND WANTING IT TO DRAIN PROPERLY. UM, BUT BASICALLY I'M JUST COMING BACK TO SEE IF WE'VE, UH, MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES, UM, SUGGESTED IN THE LAST MEETING. OKAY. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS. YES, THIS COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO. CONCURS WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DENY FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AT FIVE 20 LEE STREET. THE MASSING HEIGHT ROOF FORMS OF ADMINISTRATION DO NOT READ A SUBORDINATE AS A SUBORDINATE REAR STRUCTURE ON THIS LOT AND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH HISTORIC BUILDING PATTERNS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ? I, I, UM, JUST, JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT THIS, I SEE ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE. I WANTED TO THANK THE, THE APPLICANT FOR THE ALLOT, THE, THE, THE, THE MUCH WORK THAT WAS DONE WITH RESPECT TO THE MASSING, UH, THREE D ANIMATIONS OR THE RENDERINGS. UM, SEE IT IS A COMPLEX, UM, VERY COMPLEX SITUATION IN A VERY UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. UM, I KNOW IT'S ADJACENT TO, UM, THE, THE SIDE OF LA VACA THAT THAT BEGINS TO DO QUITE A BIT OF INNOVATIVE, UM, UH, FORMS. THE, THE, THE OTHER THING I THINK IS THAT WHEN LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION TO WORK YOURSELF IN AND OUT OF. UM, BUT I JUST WANT TO COMMENT THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE DIFFERENT MEETINGS AND THE D R C, UM, THIS, THIS APPLICANT HAS REALLY, REALLY GONE VERY FAR IN, IN ESTABLISHING, UH, YOU KNOW, VERY, VERY, UH, EASY WAY TO COMMUNICATE WHAT'S HAPPENING FROM VERY COMPLEX SITUATION THAT I THINK WE SPOKE ABOUT AT LENGTH AND THE COMPLEXITY OF SEEING HEIGHTS AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THE ONE THING THAT I THINK IS VERY UNIQUE TOO IS THE DEPTH OF THIS, THIS PROPERTY AND, AND THE IDEA OF, OF SUBORDINATE STRUCTURES VERSUS, UH, MAIN STRUCTURES. THIS COMMUNITY KIND OF BREAKS THE RULE. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT IN TERMS OF, UH, NOT IN TERMS OF RULE BREAKING, BUT IN TERMS OF INNOVATION IN THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CREATED AFTER SO MUCH CHANGE OCCURS IN, IN NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, THAT, THAT YOU'RE LEFT WITH THESE ODD SITUATIONS. SO I, I AM, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I, BECAUSE I THINK THE APPLICANT DID A GOOD JOB IN ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS GRAPHICALLY. UM, BUT I, I, I DO FEEL, UM, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD RECEIVE SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP CHAIR. YES, MA'AM. UM, I JUST WANTED, I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS DISCUSSED AT D R C OR AT THE LAST MEETING WE SAW THIS. I KIND OF DON'T REMEMBER, BUT I THINK WE HAD ASKED THE APPLICANT AND I FEEL LIKE I WAS NOT AT THE D R C, BUT AT THE LAST MEETING, UH, THE DRAWINGS THAT I'M SEEING IN THIS PACKAGE HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE LAST TIME IT WAS PRESENTED TO US. AND I THINK IT WAS VERY, UM, WHAT WE WANTED TO SEE WAS KIND OF, INSTEAD OF A THREE D MODEL WAS LITERALLY LIKE PICTURES FROM THE STREET, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. I FELT LIKE, UM, WE WERE GOING THROUGH THESE, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S BEEN UPDATED SINCE THE LAST MEETING, BUT I FEEL LIKE I'M LOOKING AT THE SAME THING AND I'M STILL HAVING A HARD TIME, UH, SEEING THIS AS SUBORDINATE TO THE PRO TO THE PROPERTIES, TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND THEN, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M MISSING IT, BUT I DON'T SEE A TOTAL ROOF HEIGHT. I SEE THE FLOOR HEIGHTS, BUT I DON'T SEE THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN ADDRESS? UH, MR. JONES, THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS, UH, 24 FEET, JUST AN INCHES. IT'S ACTUALLY SHORTER THAN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST. UH, AND ONE THING I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS TOO, UH, I KNOW WE'RE CALLING THIS A SUBORDINATE PROPERTY, [00:25:01] UM, BUT YOU'LL BE SEEING THE PLANS FOR THE FRONT THREE BUILDINGS, THE EXISTING, UH, HOMES THAT NEED TO BE RENOVATED AND WE'RE ADDING ONTO THOSE FRONT ONES. SO THEY'RE GONNA HAVE AN ADDITION THAT WILL BE TWO STORY. UM, SO IN TERMS OF THIS LOT, UH, THEY WILL ACTUALLY BE TALLER, I GUESS. UH, THE, THE RIDGE ELEVATION WILL BE TALLER THAN WHAT'S IN THE BACK. UM, IT'S JUST THAT I WANT TO DO MY HOUSE FIRST 'CAUSE I NEED MY HOUSE. BUT, UH, WE WILL BE RENOVATING DOING FULL HISTORICAL RENOVATIONS, UH, ON THOSE FRONT UNITS, TAKING OFF THE POORLY DONE ADDITION AND ACTUALLY, UH, ADDING ONTO THEM, UH, PROBABLY WITHIN THE NEXT 30 TO 60 DAYS YOU'LL SEE SOME PRINTS. SO, UM, EVEN THOUGH INITIALLY IT LOOKED LIKE IT'S GONNA BE A LARGER SUBORDINATE, UH, STRUCTURE, IT , SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. AGAIN, YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION ON THE ROOF HEIGHT. SO WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOUR ROOF HEIGHT IS LOWER THAN THE, AND I'M, I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 5 24 LEE REAR BUILDING, MAYBE IF STAFF CAN GO TO THE, THE PAGE 27 AND WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE GONNA DO ADDITIONS, I MEAN, IT'S NOTHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY US. AM I CORRECT? IS THAT WHERE IT SAYS? NO? WE HAVEN'T PRINTS RIGHT NOW, BUT WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE GONNA DO TWO PROPERTIES THAT YOU'RE GONNA ADD ON TO, UH, AS THOSE, THE SQUARES THAT ARE CALLED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, THOSE ARE THE SQUARE, THE TWO EXISTING HOUSES, UH, DIRECTLY ON LABOR STREET. OKAY, SO TO THE LEFT, THIS IS, YES. OKAY. YEAH, THIS IS TO THE WEST. THIS IS STEPHANIE. I JUST WANNA JUMP IN AND STOP. SO, UM, SCOTT IS MENTIONING TO YOUR QUESTION, ANNMARIE ABOUT LIKE COMPARABLE EVE HEIGHTS. SO AT THE TOP RIGHT CORNER, THE EXISTING REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OF A BUILDING ON LEE IS 28 FEET TALL. SO SCOTT IS MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT HIS PROPOSED BUILDING IS 24 FEET. I DO WANNA AVOID TALKING ABOUT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THAT IS NOT ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW. SO IF WE CAN JUST FOCUS ON, I THINK THAT WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE, CONFIRM THAT IT WAS NOTHING THAT WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED. SO, UM, AND I SEE THAT, THAT IT'S 25 AND YOU SAID IT WAS 23, AND I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN A LITTLE BIT, MY ISSUE IS THAT I FEEL LIKE YOUR, YOUR ROOF PLAN IS THE HIGHEST POINT, OR YOU CAN SAY THE PART OF THE ROOF THAT'S MORE ELEVATED IS MORE TO TOWARDS THE PROPERTY THAT HAS THE 15 FEET EVE AND NOT SO MUCH TOWARDS THE REAR. AND I MEAN, I JUST IN GENERAL, I FEEL LIKE I HAVE NOT GOTTEN THE ANSWER. I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEBODY FROM THE D R C WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT, UM, FROM WHAT YOU SAW AT D R C, THIS IS, UH, JEFF AND, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER. I WAS AT THE D R C AND WHAT WE DISCUSSED WAS, UH, BASICALLY WHAT MR. JONES HAS PRESENTED, UH, THE PREVIOUS PLAN HAD SOME LARGER BLANK WALLS AND WE DISCUSSED HIM STUDYING, ADDING MORE FENESTRATION TO BREAK DOWN THE MASS OF THE, THOSE ELEVATIONS. UH, THE WAY THAT THE ROOF PITCHES ON THE GARAGE SLOPES TO THE NORTH, WHICH THEN IS CLOSEST TO THAT STREET, THE HOUSE ON LEE STREET, THAT IS 15 FOOT EVE HEIGHT. UM, SO THE 24 FEET IS MORE IN THE, FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, AND YOU CAN CONFIRM THIS, MR. JONES, 24 FEET HIGH EVE IS, UM, MORE TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF THE HOUSE. YEAH, IT'S FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH OF THE HOUSE. SO THAT HIGHER ELEVATION, UH, IS FACING THE BACKYARDS OF THE DIVINE. I IT'S DIVINE STREET. AND WE HAD, IF YOU, IF YOU RECALL, WE HAD CHANGED THAT WHOLE ROOF LINE LOOKING FROM LAY STREET TO REDUCE THAT MASSIVE, UM, INSTEAD OF HAVING, UH, UH, A MORE COMPLEX ROOF, WE MADE IT, UM, BASICALLY A [00:30:01] SHED ROOF GOING DOWN TOWARDS LAY STREET SO THAT WHEN YOU LOOK FROM LAY STREET, YOU DON'T SEE, UH, IT, IT REDUCES THE OVERALL EFFECT. UM, MR. CHAIR, UM, I BELIEVE THAT ELEVATION NUMBER ONE AND ELEVATION NUMBER THREE, UH, CAN SHOW THAT. I THINK ALSO TO COMMISSIONER GRU'S QUESTION, MR. CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. YES, SIR. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, IF, IF WE'RE, IF WE APPROVE THIS TODAY, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS ITEMS? UH, ONE THROUGH FIVE. THE LOWER, THE LOWER OH YES. STIPULATIONS. OKAY. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M, YES. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION WHEN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THEN. MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, I MOVE, UH, FOR, UH, FINAL APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE TO CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. I'LL SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YOU HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE FISH. AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. AYE. THAT AYE. LA AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [25. Address/Description: 326 RIVERSIDE DR HDRC Case No.: 2020-433 Historic District Name: Mission RIO District: RIO-5 Applicant: Nicholas Melde/Architexas Request: Construction of twenty-five, 2-story residential structures City Council Dist.: 3] OKAY, ITEM 25. EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? GO AHEAD. YES, I JUST PROCEEDED. UNMUTE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 25 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 24 33 3 26 RIVERSIDE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT 25 2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON ALLOTTED 3 26 RIVERSIDE. THE TWO HISTORIC STRUCTURES ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WE WILL BE REHABILITATED AND ARE NOT PART OF THIS APPLICATION. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PRIOR TO RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL. ONE THAT THE APPLICANT USE SETBACKS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REGARDING SETBACKS ON RIVERSIDE DRIVE IS NOTED IN FINDING E TWO THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE APPROPRIATE ROOF AND FACADE MASSING THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. AS NOTED IN FINDINGS G AND J THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE TRADITIONAL ENTRANCE ELEMENTS AND PORCH MASSING AS NOTED IN FINDING L FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE APPROPRIATE WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES. AS NOTED IN FINDING K FIVE, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE MATERIALS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IS NOTED IN FINDING N SIX THAT THE APPLICANT USE WINDOWS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION IS NOTED IN FINDING O AND FOUND IN THE APPLICABLE CITATION SEVEN THAT THE APP THAT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR SITE ELEMENTS IS NOTED IN FINDING R AND EIGHT THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSED PARKING. THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE IS NOTED IN FINDING Q. THERE'S ALSO A COMMENT REGARDING ARCHEOLOGY. AN ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED. THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING ARCHEOLOGY AS APPLICABLE, I HAVE, UH, THE APPLICANT'S PATRICK CHRISTENSEN AND NICK MELDY ON THE LINE NOW. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, THREE 10 SOUTH ST. MARY'S, SUITE 2,700. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE IN THE, THE CITY PROCESS BEFORE NICK GETS STARTED ON THE ARCH ON THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WE DID, UM, SINCE WE LAST SAW YOU IN NOVEMBER, WE HAVE GOTTEN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE I D Z REZONING AND THE SITE PLAN. WE'VE GOTTEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL OF A, OF A VARIANCE FROM THE 50 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENT. WE ALSO SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY REGARDING, UH, SOME INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS WE HAVE TO DO TO THE PROPERTY BEFORE WE CAN DEVELOP IT. AND THAT IS IT. WE FINALLY GOT FINAL CANCEL APPROVAL, LIKE I SAID. AND NICK, IF YOU WANT TO GET STARTED ON THE ARCHITECTURE. SURE. UM, SO, UH, WHERE WE LEFT, UH, LEFT IT, UH, LAST TIME, UM, WE WERE, UH, WE, WE HAD WORKED THROUGH, UH, TRYING TO GET MORE VARIATION INTO, UM, EACH OF THE, UH, DIFFERENT UNIT PLANS. UM, UH, THAT WOULD INCLUDE, UH, THE ROOT FORMS, UH, THE, UH, VARIATION IN, UH, FACADES AND ARTICULATION, UH, PARTICULARLY ALONG, UH, RIVERSIDE, UH, AS WELL AS, UH, THE SAN ANTONIO, UH, RIVER FRONTAGE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. UM, AND, UM, EXPANDING FROM, UH, THAT, UH, DISCUSSION AND [00:35:01] DESIGN DIRECTION. UH, WE, UH, PROPOSED, UH, THESE, UH, THESE ADJUSTMENTS YEAH, IN, IN THIS, IN THIS FINAL DESIGN PACKAGE. AND, UM, UH, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THE LAST, UH, VERSION THAT, THAT WE SAW WITH JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, DEFINITION IN, UH, THE ROOF, ROOF FORMS, UH, BUILDING SIZES, FLOOR PLANS, WINDOW PLACEMENT, UH, AND, UH, AND, AND PORCHES, UM, ON, ON ON EACH OF THE BUILDINGS. UM, I, I WILL, I, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, HERE, UM, MIRROR, UH, ALMOST VERBATIM WHAT WE WENT THROUGH AND, UM, DISCUSSED AT THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PHASE. UM, AND SO I, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE ALREADY, UM, DISCUSSED MOST OF THESE. UM, UH, AND SO I, I, I REALLY KIND OF WANT TO GO BACK TO SOME OF THE, UM, UH, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WHERE, WHERE WE LEFT IT AT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. UM, AND THOSE INCLUDED, UH, A A LANDSCAPING PLAN, WHICH, WHICH WILL COME. UM, BUT ONCE WE, UH, SO WHAT WE, WHAT, WHAT OUR GOAL IS, IS TO, UH, TODAY IS TO, UM, GET FINAL APPROVAL ON, UH, THE, UH, ON THE DESIGN OF, OF EACH OF THE, UM, HOUSES AND THEIR, UH, ALLOCATION ON THE SITE PLAN, ESSENTIALLY, UH, THAT WILL ALLOW US THE CONFIDENCE TO, UH, GO FORWARD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH A AND, AND FINALIZE A LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT COMPLIES, UH, WITH THE, UH, SAN ANTONIO RIVER AUTHORITY, UM, STIPULATIONS THAT WE'VE ALREADY AGREED TO, UH, AS PATRICK MENTIONED. UM, AND SO, UH, THAT, THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE FIRST ONE. THE SECOND ONE, UH, WAS ABOUT COORDINATING WITH, UH, WITH SAN SUNNY RIVER AUTHORITY. THE THIRD ONE WAS THAT THE APPLICANT CONTINUED TO DEVELOP ROOF FORMS, BUILDING HEIGHTS AND WIC AND PRO AND PORCH PROFILES TO DEVELOP AN OVERALL DESIGN THAT FEATURES VARIATION BETWEEN STRUCTURES. AND I FEEL LIKE, UM, FROM THE CONCEPTUAL, UH, DESIGN REVIEW, UM, THIS JUST PICKS UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF THERE, UH, WHICH WAS APPROVED, UH, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUSLY. UM, THIRDLY, UH, THAT THE PROPOSED BOARD AND BATTEN SIGHTING FEATURE STAFF, UM, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WE ARE, UH, PLANNING, WE, WE WILL COMPLY WITH THAT. UM, ALL WINDOWS ADHERE TO STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. UH, WE, UH, WE ARE WORKING THROUGH A, A WINDOW SUBMISSION, UH, AND, AND WORKING WITH, UH, MR. HALL, UM, ON THAT. UM, SO, SO THAT HAS TO COME. BUT, UH, UH, WOULD LIKE TO NOTE, UH, THAT WE ARE PROPOSING FIXED WINDOWS AND, AND THAT FIXED WINDOWS ARE FOUND, UH, QUITE COMMONLY ON, UH, HISTORIC STRUCTURES. UM, SO I, I, I WOULD LIKE, UH, AND I'M WORKING THROUGH THAT ONE WITH, WITH MR. HALL AS WELL. UM, SO, UH, WE, WE ARE PROPOSING FIXED WINDOWS AND OPERABLE WINDOWS, UM, ON, ON THIS, UH, ON THIS PROJECT ON EACH OF THE BUILDINGS. UM, AND THEN, UM, FULLY SIZED WINDOWS BEING INCORPORATED INTO EACH FACADE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME. UM, THESE ARE, UH, ZERO LOT LINE, UH, PROPERTIES. AND SO ONE FACADE, UH, WILL NEED TO BE A, UH, ONE HOUR RATED, UH, WALL THAT IS ON A PROPERTY LINE AND BY CODE CANNOT CONTAIN ANY OPENINGS, UH, AT ALL. AND SO, UM, THAT'S WHY WE'VE, UH, UH, ALLOCATED ALL OPENINGS TOWARDS THE FRONT REAR AND ONE SIDE, UM, OF EACH OF THE STRUCTURES. UM, AND THEN, UH, LAST ONE WAS ABOUT ARCHEOLOGY. AND WE'LL OF COURSE, UH, COMPLY WITH THAT. COMMISSIONERS. I JUST WANNA POINT OUT, WE HAVE TO QUESTION DISCUSSION. WE HAVE OUR RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS ON THE SCREEN. NOW. I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT WAS REFERENCING THE SAME DOCUMENT AS THIS, SO I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT AVAILABLE HERE ON THE SCREEN. MR. CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. THAT'S WHAT I MENTIONED, UH, COURT, OH, GO AHEAD. UM, YES, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, UM, CHAIRMAN FETZER, THIS, THIS PROJECT'S LOCATED IN DISTRICT THREE. AND, UM, SO FAMILIARITY WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, UM, IS, UM, REAL, VERY IMPORTANT. I THINK. UM, THE, UH, OTHER THING IS THAT WE, WE HAD A, A NICE D R C AND, UM, WE'VE GONE THROUGH, UH, SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH RESPECT TO THIS ODD, UM, SITUATION, THIS, THIS REALLY KIND OF, AT THE SAME TIME, BEAUTIFUL SITUATION. UH, BUT I THINK THAT THE, THE, THE APPLICANT HAS, HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF, [00:40:01] OF, UH, COMMUNICATING THE DIFFERENT LAYERS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT, THAT, THAT EVEN TAKES THE, UM, THE, UH, THE REALITY OF IT, RIGHT? UH, TO KIND OF ANOTHER LEVEL, RIGHT? THIS IS A, UH, UM, A, A PROJECT THAT, THAT FOR THE MOST PART ENDS UP BEING A STANDALONE, UH, STATEMENT IN, IN THE ENVIRONMENT. THERE'S AN NAME THERE, THERE'S A 54 LUMBER ACROSS THE STREET. THE, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VACANT FOR A VERY LONG TIME. THERE WAS A STRIP CLUB NEXT DOOR TO IT FOR EVEN LONGER TIME. UH, IT'S BEEN A, IT'S BEEN A, AN ENVIRONMENT THAT, THAT HAS NEEDED, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT HAS NEEDED THE DEVELOPMENT. NOW THAT BEING SAID, UH, LOOKING AT, AT THE, UM, THE WAY THAT, UM, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, INTERPRETED ALL OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD GRAPHICALLY, I THINK THAT THEY'VE COME UP WITH A REALLY WONDERFUL, UH, ARCHITECTURAL STATEMENT THAT, UH, REALLY, UM, UH, UH, SHOULD BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE UNIQUE IN THAT IT'S NOT IN A CONGESTED AREA. IT'S NOT IN AN AREA THAT'S FILLED WITH OTHER BUILDINGS. UM, AND THE, AND THE, THE LANGUAGE OF THE ARCHITECTURE IN THE AREA IS VERY ECLECTIC. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S KIND OF MOSTLY WAREHOUSES OR BUILDINGS CONVERTED INTO WAREHOUSE USERS. UM, BUT I, I, I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE A, A, A FANTASTIC JOB. MY, MY, MY COMMENTS ARE A LITTLE BIT WITH RESPECT, LITTLE BIT WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE KIND OF THE ALIENNESS OF, OF, UH, THE STAFF, UH, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS AT LARGE IN THAT AS PRESENTED THESE STATEMENTS, THESE ARCHITECTURAL STATEMENTS ARE, UM, REALLY KINDA AUTHORED, UH, TO, TO, TO, TO BE COMPLETE AS PRESENTED. UH, I, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF COMPETING, UM, ARCHITECTURAL LANGUAGE IN THE AREA THAT, THAT CAN PRESENT, UH, UM, UH, CONTRADICTION. SO I, I REALLY DO FEEL THAT, THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE GIVEN, UM, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT, UH, TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT. AND, AND THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT, I THINK, TO, TO DISTRICT THREE. BUT, BUT ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE, THE HOOPS THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH WITH RESPECT TO THE, UH, RIVER AUTHORITY. AND OF COURSE, THEY JUST GOT THEIR, THEIR APPROVALS FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. I THINK THIS IS A, A, A PROJECT THAT I, I REALLY FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT EMPOWERING, AND I COMMEND THE, THE DESIGNERS FOR CREATING A, A STATEMENT THAT OBVIOUSLY IS SPEAKING THE LANGUAGE OF, OF THE SOUTH SIDE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE ANOTHER WAY TO INTERPRET WHAT IS OLD, BUT MOST DEFINITELY NEW. SO, UH, I, UM, I COMMAND THE, THE APPLICANT, MR. CHAIR, AND, AND I HOPE THAT, UH, YOU'LL ALSO, UH, COMMEND HIM AND GIVE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. YES, SIR. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, DID WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS RELATED TO THIS CASE? NO, WE DON'T. UM, AND A QUESTION FOR STAFF, IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, YOU, I MEAN, NOT STAFF, EXCUSE ME. THE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU AGREE TO STIPULATIONS FIVE AND SIX, THAT, UH, THE MATERIAL THAT'S USED IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AND THAT THE WINDOWS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF IT'S OKAY, GO AHEAD. SORRY, I, I JUST, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT, UM, AS, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, I WENT THROUGH THE, THE, THE PREVIOUS, UM, THE, THE, THE STIPULATIONS THAT WERE MADE AFTER OUR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, UM, WAS APPROVED IN NOVEMBER. THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WENT THROUGH EARLIER. UM, AND, AND, AND THE, THE CURRENT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, AND STIPULATIONS, UM, WERE JUST ABOUT MIRRORED FROM WHAT WE WENT THROUGH, UM, AT THAT NOVEMBER MEETING. SO, UM, I, I, I BELIEVE WE'VE, WE, WE'VE ALREADY TOUCHED ON AND AGREED, UM, TO, TO EACH OF THESE, UM, STIPULATIONS, UM, I, I'LL SAY, UH, UH, EXCEPT FOR THE FIXED WINDOW, UM, STIPULATION, UM, I, I, YEAH, WE, WE TOUCHED ON THE, THE MASKING AND THE, UH, SETBACKS AND ALL OF THAT AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING. OKAY, GREAT. THANKS. UH, MS. MR. CHAIRMAN, MAYBE I CAN TRY TO CRAFT THIS INTO MOTION AND WE CAN SORT OUT ANY, MR. CHAIR, CAN I JUST COMMENT SOMETHING BEFORE THE MOTION? YES. COMMISSIONER GROUP AND, AND THIS IS TO COMMISSIONER FISH MOTION. I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DO UNDERSTAND STIPULATIONS SIX. THIS IS NO FIXED WINDOWS, AND I THINK THE APPLICANT WANTS THE FIXED WINDOWS, WHICH IS THEM. I WAS GONNA SAY, IS THERE [00:45:01] A WAY THAT WE CAN, I MEAN, I WAS GONNA SEND THIS TO, YOU KNOW, REVIEW THE WINDOWS SCHEDULE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT'S SAYING WORKING ON A WINDOW SCHEDULE, BUT I DON'T WANNA PROVE ANYTHING WITH THE WINDOWS THAT ARE CURRENTLY PRESENTED, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF FIXED WINDOWS ON THE RIVERSIDE SPECIFICALLY, AND I FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOTTA BE CAREFUL THERE. AND THEN I THINK, UM, I'VE HAD TALKED ABOUT ALSO THERE'S A STIPULATION, UM, I MEAN, AND IT GOES A LITTLE BIT WITH WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS AND WITH THE STIPULATION FOUR, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, AND THEN THE DRIVEWAY HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED, AND I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH THE DRIVEWAY WITH, UM, WHICH I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, I'M, I'M, I'M OKAY WITH IT. I MEAN, IT'S JUST ONE CURB CUT, BUT IT'S JUST BIG PROPERTY, I FEEL LIKE, AND ALSO BASED ON WAS ON THE PROPERTY WHEN WE WERE THERE, D R C, SO I WOULD PROBABLY REMOVE THAT. AND, AND, UH, C CHAIR, UH, JUST TO COMMISSIONER, UH, FISH'S MOTION. I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M HOPEFUL THAT, THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A, A, AN ARCHITECTURAL STATEMENT AND WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THAT, YOU KNOW, THE REQUEST FOR THE FIXED WINDOW, I, I THINK IS PART OF THE TRUTH OF THE STATEMENT THAT WE CAN, WE CAN CHANGE WHATEVER WE WANT TO CHANGE, BUT IT AFFECTS THE TRUTH OF THIS STATEMENT. I THINK THEY WERE VERY THOUGHTFUL IN WHAT THEY'VE DONE, THAT THIS IS NOT AN ACCIDENT OR, OR, OR DESIGNED BY, BY, UH, THE UTILITY OF THINGS AVAILABLE. I THINK THEY'RE VERY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WHAT THEY'VE DONE, AND I'M HOPING THAT YOUR MOTION WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT WE REALLY DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY RIGHT THERE IN THE SOUTH SIDE TO HAVE THE INTRODUCTION OF A LANGUAGE THAT IS, UH, THAT IS, THAT IS GIVEN BY EXAMPLE OF, OF WHAT IS REALLY NICELY BALANCED ARCHITECTURE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FISH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I, I REALLY DON'T HAVE A CONCERN WITH, GIVEN THE PROPORTIONS AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THIS IS, I DON'T THINK THE FIXED WINDOW, UH, ASPECT OF THAT IS, UH, OF GREAT CONCERN TO ME. I THINK THE MATERIALITY AND THE DEPTH AND THE INSTALLATION IS WHAT I'M MORE COMPELLED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IN THAT STIPULATION. AND TO COMMISSIONER GROOVE'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE ENTRY ELEMENTS, I, I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE, THEY'RE PROPOSED IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE PROJECT. SO I WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATION FIVE, WHICH IS THE INCORPORATION OF MATERIALS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AND STAFF STIPULATION SIX, THAT THE WINDOWS ARE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARDS FOR MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION DEPTH, BUT WILL ALLOW FOR FIXED WINDOWS AS PROPOSED. I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? FISH? AYE. AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELAZQUEZ? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. GROUP? AYE. BE AYE. LI AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, ADAM. THANK YOU [26. Address/Description: 101 PASO HONDO HDRC Case No.: 2021-113 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: George Torres/George Torres Architect Request: Construction of four, 2-story residential structures City Council Dist.: 2] ADAM. 26. EDWARD IS REACHING OUT TO THAT APPLICANT RIGHT NOW, SO GIVE US JUST A COUPLE MINUTES. AND THIS ONE I DO BELIEVE, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE DO. I EDWARD, DO WE NEED TO MOVE ON? EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? LOOKS LIKE HE'S STILL TRYING. [00:50:07] OKAY, WE'RE ALMOST THERE. ALRIGHT, CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? YEP. OKAY. SORRY FOR THE DELAY. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 26 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 1 1 3 1 0 1 PADO. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT FOUR TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE VACANT LOT AT 1 0 1 PASO HONDO LOCATED WITHIN THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. THIS LOT IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF PASO HONDO AND NORTH MESQUITE STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS. A THROUGH S STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PRIOR TO RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. ONE, THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FRONT FACADE THAT FEATURES DETAILS AND MASSING CONSISTENT WITH FRONT FACADES FOUND ON THIS BLOCK OF PATHO HONDO IS NOTED IN FINDING D TWO THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCED THE PROPOSED MASSING TO RESULT IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT FEATURES BOTH THE MASSING AND BUILDING TO LOT RATIO THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AND COMPARABLE TO THAT FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND ON THIS BLOCK. THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSED A BUILDING ENTRANCE ORIENTATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AND HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN FOUND ON THIS BLOCK. FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT UTILIZED FOUNDATION HEIGHTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES, UH, AT LEAST ONE, ONE FOOT IN HEIGHT. FIVE, THE CONTEMPORARY WINDOW SIZES, INCLUDING RECTANGULAR AND FIXED WINDOWS, AS WELL AS THOSE THAT NOT DO NOT FEATURE SEPARATING MILLIONS BE ELIMINATED. AND THAT WINDOWS THAT ARE COMPARABLE TO THOSE FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT BEING, BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN. SIX, THAT THE APPLICANT INCREASED PORCH MASSEY AND DETAILS AND THAT EACH PORCH FEATURED THE DEPTH OF AT LEAST FIVE FEET PORCH MASKING SHOULD BE INTEGRAL INTO THE MASSING OF THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION. UH, STIPULATION SEVEN ARE IS STAFF'S, UH, STANDARDS FOR SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIDING AND ROOFING MATERIALS STIPULATION EIGHT THAT WOULD OR ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS BE USED AND THAT PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOWS AND CONSTRUCTION. WE CAN HEAR NINE THAT UNIQUE THIS WAY, RIGHT NINE THAT UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SUCH AS FENESTRATION PATTERNS, ROOF FORMS, AND MATERIAL PROFILES BE INCORPORATED INTO D TO DIFFERENTIATE EACH OF THE STRUCTURES. 10, THAT THE APPLICANT DEVELOP A DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION THAT DOES NOT RESULT IN THREE CURB CUTS WITHIN THE HISTORIC FOOTPRINT OF ONE ORIGINAL LOT 11 THAT THE APPLICANT ELIMINATE. THE PROPOSED ATTACHED CARPORTS IS NOTED IN FINDING P AND THAT THE APPLICANT DEVELOPED ALTERNATIVE PARKING CONFIGURATIONS 12, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE FRONT WALKWAYS THAT LEAD FROM THE FRONT PORCH TO THE SIDEWALK AT THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND 13 THAT THE APPLICANT SCREEN ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. I HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE, MR. GEORGE TORRES. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. UM, MY NAME IS GEORGE TORRES. I AM THE ARCHITECT FOR THE, UH, THIS PROJECT 1 0 1 HONDO. UH, AND I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU, UH, AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT, UM, BEFORE FURTHER REVIEWING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND, UM, JUST REVIEWING WHAT WE, UH, I GUESS CAN ACHIEVE AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO, UH, REVIEW IN MORE DEPTH. UH, AND AGAIN, THIS IS FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. UM, SO JUST A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS OF FOUR NEW TOWNHOMES TO BE LOCATED AT 1 0 1 PAA HONDO. THE LOT IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF PAA HONDO AND NORTH MESQUITE AND IS BORDERED, UH, BY A FOUR STORY HOLIDAY INN TO THE WEST, THE COMMERCIAL U-HAUL NEIGHBORHOOD DEALERSHIP, UH, TO THE SOUTH, EXISTING HOUSE TO THE EAST, AND THEN ANOTHER COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO THE NORTH OF THAT. UH, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCES RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN WHAT IS CONSIDERED, UH, PREDOMINANTLY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREA. UH, THE PROPOSED TOWNHOUSES ARE TO BE TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT AND ARE APPROXIMATELY 1,530 SQUARE FEET. SO EACH, UH, TOWNHOUSE WILL HAVE A DEDICATED DRIVEWAY, A SIDE DRIVEWAY, AND A CARPORT, UH, ALONG WITH, UH, A SIDE YARD. AND THESE WOULD BE ACCESSED ALONG NORTH MESQUITE. UM, THE SOUTHERNMOST UNIT IS ORIENTED TOWARDS HONDO CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING HOUSES ON THE STREET. AND THE, UH, AND THEN THE REST OF THEM ARE KIND OF ORIENTED TOWARDS, UH, NORTH MESQUITE IN ORDER TO TO FRONT THE ROAD. UM, THE PROPOSED MATCHING OF THE TOWNHOUSES, UH, WE BELIEVE ARE, UM, APPROPRIATE TO, TO WHAT, UM, IS EXISTING. AND, AND WE ARE A LITTLE HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING HOUSE. UM, HOWEVER, WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE ARE DOING ANYTHING THAT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, TOO EXTREME. SO, [00:55:01] UM, JUST TO KIND OF GO BACK, IF, IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO SLIDE 13, UH, THIS IS KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE, THE BLOCK AND, UH, IT SHOWS THAT THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, LARGE HONDO IS A RESIDENTIAL BLOCK, BUT, UH, THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT AGAIN IS VERY COMMERCIAL, UH, IN NATURE WE AND INDUSTRIAL. SO, UH, WHAT WE'RE TRYING, I GUESS WHAT THE CLIENT IS, IS WANTING TO ACHIEVE IS TO BRING, YOU KNOW, MORE FAMILIES IN, IN OTHERWISE, UH, VERY COMMERCIAL AND, UH, INDUSTRIAL, UH, PART OF, PART OF, UH, DIGNITY WITTY. SO, UM, IN SLIDE 14, LET'S SEE, YOU CAN GO TO SLIDE 16. THAT JUST GIVES YOU, UH, AN OVERVIEW OF THE, UH, EXISTING, UH, PROPERTIES. SO, UM, WE HAVE ST. PAUL'S UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, UM, AND THEN KIND OF GOING SOUTH, YOU, YOU WILL SEE, UH, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PARKING LOT, ANOTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. AND THEN OUR, UM, OUR 1 0 1 PA HONDA LOT, WHICH AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO, UM, IS CURRENTLY BEING USED AS A PARKING LOT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD U-HAUL. UM, AND THEN ALONG HONDO, UH, THAT'S SLIDE 17, UM, YOU CAN SEE THE FIVE STORY HOLIDAY INN, THE PROPOSED CORNER LOT 1 0 1 PASO HONDO, AND THEN THE EXISTING, UH, CHARACTER OF, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH, UH, I BELIEVE THERE IS ONE TWO STORY STRUCTURE AT 1 25 PASO HONDO, WHICH IS A MULTI-STORY, UM, UH, PROPERTY. UM, IF YOU GO TO THE SITE PLAN, IT GIVES YOU A GOOD, UH, FEEL FOR, I MEAN, I GUESS A FEEL FOR WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. UM, AGAIN, IT'S FOUR UNITS AND ALL FOUR UNITS ARE, UH, TO BE ACCESS FROM NORTH MESQUITE. SO THERE WILL BE THREE, UH, CURB CUTS BEING PROPOSED. AND THE, UH, ACCESS FOR UNIT FOUR WOULD BE ALONG OFF THE ALLEYWAY, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, TO PROVIDE THE, THE STRUCTURE OF A PARKING SPOT. UM, WHAT THE CLIENT IS TRYING TO DO HERE IS, UH, REALLY, UH, PROVIDE UNITS THAT ATTRACT FAMILIES AND NOT NECESSARILY, UH, YOU KNOW, MAYBE JUST SINGLE OR, UH, TO TWO PERSON, UH, FAMILIES IN THAT IS SEEN IN A MULTI-FAMILY UNIT. SO WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO IS, UM, REALLY ATTRACT FAMILY MEMBERS, UM, FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BE, UH, A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT, UH, THAT IS GONNA BE STRUCTURED AS A, AS A CONDO DEAL. SO THEY WILL BE FOR SALE, UM, AND NOT, NOT FOR RENT. UM, GOING TO, LET'S SEE IF WE, WE DID, UM, REACH OUT TO D R C IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD A COUPLE TIMES, AND WHAT WE DID IS, UH, WE PRESENTED A COUPLE PRELIMINARY OPTIONS, UH, INITIALLY THAT INTRODUCED, UM, A SHARED DRIVEWAY THROUGH THE PROPERTY. UM, BUT WHAT THAT DID WAS IT LIMITED US TO HAVE, UH, THREE STORY STRUCTURES WITH GROUND FLOOR GARAGES ON THE FIRST, FIRST FLOOR. UM, AND WE STARTED WITH TWO DUPLEXES. SO IT'D BE, YOU KNOW, TWO STRUCTURES, THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT, UM, GARAGES ON THE FIRST FLOOR, AND, UM, THE SECOND AND, AND THIRD, UH, STORIES WOULD BE DEDICATED FOR, FOR LIVING SPACE. SO WHAT WE HAD FOUND WAS THAT THAT STRUCTURE WAS, YOU KNOW, UH, OVERLY IN TERMS OF MASS AND SCALE. UH, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WASN'T REALLY FOND OF, UM, AND WAS REQUESTING US TO REDUCE THE, THE BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, IN MASSING AND HEIGHT. SO WE, WE SHRUNK IT DOWN TO, TO TWO STORIES, AND THAT'S ONE WE INTRODUCED SIDE YARD, UH, WITH THE CARPORT. UM, IN ADDITION YOU WILL SEE, UM, THAT WE HAD, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH IS, UH, SLIDE NUMBER 19, UM, WE HAVE THE SOUTHERNMOST UNIT ORIENTED TOWARDS PASA HONDO AND THE, AGAIN, THE REST OF 'EM, UM, [01:00:01] ORIENTED TOWARDS NORTH MESQUITE. IF WE WERE, IF WE'RE TO LOOK AT, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN, UH, SATISFY ITEMS FOUR, ITEM SEVEN, ITEM EIGHT, UM, ITEM NINE, 12 AND 13. AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST KIND OF GO OVER THE REST OF THEM IN TERMS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AND HOW WE GOT TO THE CURRENT DESIGN. UM, NUMBER ONE BEING A DEVELOPMENT OF FRONT FACADE THAT FEATURES DETAILS OF MASS INCONSISTENT WITH FRONT FACADES FOUND ON THIS BLOCK OF PA HONDAS NOTED, UH, IN FINDING D. SO INITIALLY, UH, ALL THE UNITS HAD FRONTED BOTH MESQUITE, BUT AGAIN, WE, WE MADE THE EFFORT TO, UM, TO ORIENT UNIT ONE TOWARDS PAA HONDO, UH, TO BETTER RELATE TO THAT STREET. UM, NUMBER TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCED THE PROPOSED MASSING TO RESULT IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT FEATURES BOTH THE MASSING AND BUILDING TO LOT RATIO THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AND COMPARABLE TO THAT FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND ON THIS BLOCK AS NOTED IN FINDING E AND K. UM, AS MENTIONED, UH, PREVIOUSLY WE DID START WITH, UH, THREE STORY STRUCTURES, UH, WITH GROUND LEVEL GARAGES AND THAT, UH, THOSE DIDN'T, I GUESS, WE'RE LACKING FENESTRATION. SO WHAT WE DID IS, UH, ELIMINATED THE GARAGES AND PROVIDED, UH, A SIDE PARKING SPOT, UM, WITH THE CARPORT. UM, AND THEN TO ADD TO THAT, THE, THIS, UM, THIS LOT IS ZONED RMM FOUR AND THE CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT, THAT WE CAN FIT ON THE SLOT. SO WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY ATTEMPTING TO GET, UM, THE FOUR UNITS THAT ARE ALLOWED, UM, AND DO IT IN A WAY THAT JUST KIND OF IS SENSIBLE TO A LOT AND UNDERSTANDING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT IF THIS WAS A SINGLE FAMILY LOT, THEN WE ARE DEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, UH, IDENTIFYING WHAT WHAT IS CONSIDERED WOULD BE CONSIDERED, UH, NOT ACCEPTABLE. UM, LOT, UH, BUILDING A LOT RATIO. UH, HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, WE, WE FEEL LIKE IF WE ARE TREATING EACH UNIT AS AN INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD, UH, THEN WE ARE, YOU KNOW, IT IS STILL DENSE, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE DOING IT IN A SENSIBLE FASHION IN REGARDS TO, UH, SCALE AND FORM, UM, I THINK RIGHT NOW WE ARE JUST, WE ARE A LITTLE OVER IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, UH, THE, THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO LOT RATIO. UM, I THINK WE ARE AT 47.3 AND THE U D C REQUIRES THAT 45%, UH, BUILDING TO LOT RATIO. SO WE ARE LOOKING TO, TO, UH, REDUCE THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT 45%. UH, LET'S SEE. ITEM NUMBER THREE, THE APPLICANT PROPOSED BUILDING ENTRANCE ORIENTATION. THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES. AGAIN, UH, YOU KNOW, WE FEEL THAT UNIT ONE IS, UH, ORIENTED TOWARDS HONDO AND, AND IT'S TWO THROUGH FOUR ORIENTED TOWARDS NORTH MESQUITE IN ORDER TO GAUGE ENGAGE THE, THE STREET. UM, SEE NUMBER, NUMBER FIVE, UH, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CONTEMPORARY SIZED WINDOWS, FIXED WINDOWS. UM, WE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CURRENTLY, UH, DOES SHOW WHAT APPEAR TO BE FIXED WINDOWS. UH, THE MAJORITY ARE EITHER GONNA BE OPERABLE. UM, AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE OPEN TO, UH, ADJUSTING THIS TO, TO FURTHER, UH, MEET THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT AGAINST, UM, YOU KNOW, DOUBLE, DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS AND, UH, OPERABLE BASEMENT WINDOWS. NUMBER SIX, THE APPLICANT INCREASED PORCH MASSING AND DETAIL THAT EACH PORCH SHOULD BE FEATURED, UH, THE DEPTH OF AT LEAST FIVE FEET. SO WE ARE, WE ARE, UH, PROVIDING AT LEAST FIVE FEET, UH, DEEP PORCHES. UH, HOWEVER I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE, UH, MAY NOT BE TO THE SCALE MASSING AS, UH, AS WANTED. I GUESS, UH, NUMBER NUMBER 10, THAT THE APPLICANT DEVELOPED A DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION THAT DOES NOT RESULT IN THREE CURB CUTS WITHIN THE HISTORIC FOOTPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL LOT NOTED IN FINDING THE KEY. AND AGAIN, THAT GOES BACK TO [01:05:01] OUR ATTEMPT TO, UH, PROVIDE AN INTERNAL SHARED DRIVEWAY. UM, THIS WOULD BY CODE BE, HAVE TO BE ABOUT 24 FEET, UH, IN, IN WIDTH. AND THAT WOULD, UH, FORCE US TO ESSENTIALLY GO TO A THREE STORY STRUCTURE, WHICH, UH, WE FELT, YOU KNOW, WAS NOT BASED IN OF OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND D R C, THAT THAT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. UM, AND THE LAST ITEM THAT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS, UH, NUMBER 11, THAT THE APPLICANT ELIMINATE THE PROPOSED ATTACHED CARPORT AS NOTED IN FINDINGS T AND THAT THE APPLICANT DEVELOPED ALTERNATIVE PARKING CONFIGURATION. UM, SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I GUESS WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, ASK FOR, FOR APPROVAL ON. UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT A CARPORT IS NECESSARILY A, A BAD THING OR, OR ATYPICAL, UM, IN NATURE. SO I GUESS I WOULD LIKE MAYBE FURTHER CONVERSATION ON, ON THAT POINT AND THAT THAT ESSENTIALLY CONCLUDES THE, THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, CAN WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES. UM, THE FIRST COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS. UM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO AGREES WITH THE O H P STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME, THE SCALE MASSING FENESTRATION PATTERNS AND FACADE DETAILS OF THE, OF THESE PROPOSED BUILDINGS DO NOT RELATE TO THE ESTABLISHED PATTERNS OF THE COMMUNITY. UM, THE NEXT COMES FROM, UM, SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, WE SUPPORT STAFF AND ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER THAT THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RMM FOUR. THE APPLICANT'S CURRENT SITE PLAN DOES NOT MEET U D C STANDARDS FOR RMM FOUR. IT EXCEEDS THE ALLOWABLE 45% LOT COVERAGE. IT HAS LESS THAN A 10 FOOT REAR SETBACK. FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS ARE UNKNOWN AS THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED THOSE DIMENSIONS. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN THAT FAILS TO MEET SETBACK STANDARDS IN PARTICULAR WILL CREATE LARGER, IS LARGER ISSUES LATER. AND THE D S D APPROVAL PROCESS FACTS ALSO TO CONSIDER ARE THAT ONCE THE CARDBOARDS ARE DETACHED AS REQUIRED BY OUR DESIGN GUIDELINES, THE CURRENT PLAN LEAVES VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR ADEQUATE PARKING SCREENED, MECHANICALS, OR A SIMPLE SHED. UM, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR THE, UH, APPLICANT? MR. CHAIR? THIS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ? YES, SIR. UM, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND FOR STAFF, UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICANT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A QUESTION OR A COMMENT, BUT I FEEL LIKE THE ONE DRAWING THAT'S REALLY MISSING, UM, IN, IN, IN TERMS OF CONCEPTUAL IS THE SITE PLAN. UH, I, I'VE LOOKED AT THE ELEVATIONS, I KNOW THE ELEVATIONS ARE VERY TELLING 'CAUSE YOU DID PUT DIMENSIONS, BUT AS A SITE PLAN THAT CAN GIVE US THE DIMENSION A CLEAR, STRAIGHTFORWARD, IN A DRAWING FORM, RIGHT? NOT IN A PRESENTATION FORM, IN A VERBAL PRESENTATION, BUT A DRAWING FORM THAT, THAT SAYS WHAT THE DISTANCE IS FROM THE BACK OF THE BUILDING TO THE BACK OF THE LOT LINE OR THE SIDE OF THE, HOWEVER YOU WANNA LOOK AT IT. UM, YOU KNOW, I, I JUST, I KIND OF KIND OF WANNA BE UPFRONT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT I, I'M INTERPRETING RIGHT. AND, UH, YOU, YOU KNOW, UH, I I COULD BE, I COULD BE OFF, BUT IT, IT SEEMS THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MASSING, THAT THAT THIS, THIS PROJECT KIND OF TAKES ADVANTAGE OF, OF SOME INTERPRETATIONS, UH, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY DEAL WITH THE MASSING. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WELL, IT COULD BE THREE STORIES AND THAT, THAT, AND IT'S NOT WELL THAT, THAT IS AN ANSWER TO MASSING, BUT IT COULD BE FOUR STORIES AND, AND IT'S NOT RIGHT. WHICH WOULD BE ANOTHER IRRELEVANT CONVERSATION RIGHT, ABOUT THE MASSING 'CAUSE NOBODY'S PROPOSING A FOUR STORY BUILDING, BUT THE, THE IDEA IS ODD TO ME, RIGHT? I JUST JUST WANT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU THAT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSES ARE ON MESQUITE. SO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTIES ARE ON, UM, THAT, THAT LOT LINE WITH THE BRICK BRICK NEIGHBOR, BUT NOW THE ADDRESS IS ON PADO, SO THE REAR PROPERTY IS REALLY ON THAT ALLEY. RIGHT? SO IN, IN OTHER WORDS, IN OTHER WORDS, JUST THE CONFIGURATION CREATES A PROBLEM OF, UM, OF WHAT ANYBODY IN A COMMON CONVERSATION IS GONNA HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THE ELEMENTS OF, OF A, OF THAT LITTLE BLOCK IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. RIGHT? SO THERE'S, TO ME, THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT ARE CONFLICTING WITH, WITH WHAT, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS. ONE IS THAT YES, IT IS A BIG ENVIRONMENTAL, A A BIG INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL USE ENVIRONMENT, BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE ALMOST IN AN ENCLAVE LIKE AN ISLAND OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. SO THE QUESTION BECOMES HOW ARE WE ALTERING THE, YOU KNOW, THE KIND OF THE URBAN FABRIC, RIGHT? OF, OF WHAT IS EITHER, UH, SOLIDLY THIS, THIS KIND OF LAST ELEMENT OF THESE HISTORIC HOUSES AND, AND THIS, THIS ISLAND OF LAND IS INCLUDING THIS PA HANDLE LAND, OR, OR HOW DO WE BREAK THAT, UH, [01:10:01] OR, OR SAY THAT THAT, THAT THAT FABRIC IS GONNA BE ALTERED, UH, AND WHAT IS MOST COMPATIBLE WITH ALTERING IT? RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IN ONE, ONE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD HAD PREVIOUSLY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS IN THE D R C BIG C COMMISSIONER, UH, FETZER HAD, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER HAD MENTIONED THE ROOF OVERHANGS. UH, YOU KNOW, THOSE THINGS THAT ARE THE PRO ARE, ARE THE REALLY THE MAJORITY OF OF THE STAFF STATEMENTS, STAFF, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, CAN BE RESOLVED OR, OR THAT THEY CAN BE SEEN KIND OF HOLISTICALLY, MUCH LIKE THE LAST PROJECT WHERE IF WE LOOK AT YOUR ELEVATION, YOUR, YOUR OVERHANGS, YOUR EAVES ARE NOT THERE, BUT YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY PROPOSING THESE REAL CLEAN, UH, UH, UH, REAL KIND OF MODERN BUILDINGS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE. I THINK WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THE ISSUE BECOMES, AND, AND I MEAN THAT AS AN EXAMPLE OF WINDOWS AND DOORS AND PORCHES AND ALL THAT. UH, UH, I, I THINK MORE SO THAT, THAT THE, THESE HOUSES ARE ALL BEING PUSHED UP AGAINST THIS FENCE REALLY DRASTICALLY. AND THE DRAWING THAT'S IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW, IT KIND OF SHOWS THAT WITH RESPECT TO MASSING, NOT, NOT, NOT, UH, HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN BE IN THE HOUSE OR NOT, NOT, BUT THE, BUT THE BOXES THAT, THE, THAT, THAT, I, IT'S ODD TO ME THOUGH. I, I MEAN THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I MENTIONED STAFF IS 'CAUSE I, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT'S NECESSARILY ALLOWED UNLESS YOU WERE IN A ZERO LOT LINE, IN WHICH CASE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT. LIKE, SAY FOR INSTANCE, YOU'RE IN AN I DZ AND THE HOUSE NEXT TO YOU IS NOT BEING USED AS A HOUSE, IT'S A COMMERCIAL USE. I D Z WOULD GIVE YOU ZERO OUTLINE, AT LEAST CLASSIC I D Z, RIGHT? SO THEY UNDERSTAND THAT ASPECT OF, OF, YOU KNOW, PLAYING THE CODE. BUT WHEN YOU GET IT PUSHED ALL THE WAY UP TO THAT SIDE, AND THEN YOU ADD ON THAT, THAT CARS, RIGHT? THE, THE, THE, THE, UH, ATTACHED CARPORTS, THE PROBLEM THEN BECOMES THE PROXIMITY OF EACH CARPORT TO EACH BUILDING. IT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS JUST AN OPINION, RIGHT? THAT THERE'S ONE BUILDING TOO MANY, AND THAT IF IT WAS ABOUT SCALE AND VIABILITY OF, OF WHATEVER THE, THE, THE, UH, INTENT IS, RIGHT? IT SEEMS LIKE UNIT ONE AND UNIT FOUR COULD BE THE SAME UNIT IF IT'S ABOUT SCALE AND UNIT TWO AND THREE COULD BE ONE UNIT E, EITHER TWO OR THREE, RIGHT? SO THAT THERE WOULD BE THREE UNITS. AND IT, IT SEEMS THAT IT WOULD DEAL WITH ANY CONTRADICTIONS TO THE MASSING BECAUSE THE WAY THAT IT IS RIGHT NOW, THE UNITS, LIKE YOU HAD MADE A COMMENT EARLIER, AND I DON'T MEAN TO LIKE BRING IT UP TO YOU, BUT THE, THE, THE CUSTOMER WANTS TO PUT AS MUCH ON THIS AS THEY CAN PUT ON ON THIS, RIGHT? BUT ALONG THE LINES OF ONE OF THE COMMENTS, IT BREAKS KIND OF WITH THE RATIO THAT YOU SEE EXISTING ON THAT, LET'S JUST CALL IT THAT ENCLAVE, RIGHT? AND, AND IT, EXCUSE COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS SO WE CAN GET OTHER COMMENTS PLEASE? UH, WELL WE CAN COME, WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU, BUT YOUR FIVE MINUTES LET'S DO, GOT UP. LET, LET'S DO THAT, MR. CHAIR. LEMME COME BACK BECAUSE MAYBE ANOTHER COMMISSIONER WILL, WILL GO THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER. CAN I PROVIDE JUST A QUICK COMMENT TO THAT OR? YES, YES, SIR. YES YOU CAN. YES, YES. UH, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS, UH, MR. VELASQUEZ. UM, SO IT, IT'S HARD TO SEE, BUT THE, THE SITE PLAN HERE IS THE MENTIONED, UM, THE, THE DIMENSIONS ARE, UM, ARE SHOWN ON THE SIDE PLAN, BUT AGAIN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE KIND OF, UH, GRAY SCALE. SO IT IS A, A LITTLE HARD TO SEE. UH, WE ARE PROVIDING FIVE FEET ON THE SIDES, UH, A 12 FOOT SETBACK IN THE FRONT, UH, AND THEN A, A 10 FOOT SETBACK IN, IN THE BACK. UM, BUT YEAH, I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS AND, AND I DO, UM, DO NOTE WHAT WHAT YOU HAVE SAID. OKAY. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, WAS IT? YES. THANK YOU. UH, CHAIRMAN. SO JUST, UH, A QUICK COUPLE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. TORRES. UM, HAS THIS PROPERTY BEEN REPLANTED? HAS IT GONE THROUGH THE, THE PLATT PROCESS AND, UH, FOR, WELL, I'LL PAUSE FOR YOUR ANSWER ON THAT. UH, NO, THE, THE PROPERTY IS, UH, EXISTING RMM FOUR AND IT HAS NOT BEEN REPLAYED, BUT IT IS YOUR INTENT TO, OR YOUR CLIENT'S INTENT TO RELA THIS AND SELL 'EM AS INDIVIDUAL HOMES, CORRECT? UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE, THE CLIENT WANTS TO DO A, A CONDO ESTABLISHMENT AND, UM, SO IT WOULD HAVE A, A CONDO UM, SLASH HOA TO BE TIED TO THE, THE LAND AND, UM, AND ASSUMED PROPERTY LINES. SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF REPLANTING WILL NECESSARY HAPPEN. WELL, UM, I GUESS THIS IS GETTING AT THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT CAN YOU, UH, ACTUALLY HAVE JUST FIVE FEET OF CLEARANCE FROM BEHIND THESE UNITS [01:15:01] OR NOT? AND PART OF THAT, UH, IS IT GONNA EITHER REQUIRE A REPRE PLATTING OF THIS PROPERTY OR YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO FOR SOME VARIANCES? UM, YEAH. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? ALRIGHT, SO, UM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WOULD LIKE TO GET, SO, SO THE GOAL IS TO, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY ESTABLISH A DIRECTION FOR THIS PROPERTY, UM, IN TERMS IN REGARDS TO DESIGN, AND THEN, AND THEN GO TO THE CITY AND HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW TO, UH, MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT MISSING ANY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CHECKING ALL THE BOXES AND ESSENTIALLY, UH, DOTTING ALL THE I'S SO THAT I THINK'S GONNA, THAT'S YOUR QUESTION. YES. UH, I THINK THERE'S GONNA BE SOME ISSUE. AND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER KIND OF BROUGHT THIS UP ALREADY ABOUT WHAT IS DE DEFINED AS THE SIDE YARD, THE BACKYARD, THE FRONT YARD IN THIS SITUATION. UM, UNLESS IT GOES THROUGH SOME REFL, THAT WOULD BE, UH, FAVORABLE FOR YOU. AND, UH, THE REASON WHY I ASK THESE QUESTIONS, 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT THE ONES THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH REPL, BUT WE DO HAVE A, A, A REVIEW PROCESS IN THAT, UM, IS, I, I JUST DON'T THINK THE HORSESHOES CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE STAKE FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS APPROACH YET. AND I KNOW YOU'RE, YOU'RE HERE TRYING TO GET KIND OF PRELIMINARY, UM, UH, ASSURANCES THAT THIS, THIS CAN MOVE FORWARD UNDER, UH, THIS KIND OF SCENARIO. BUT I, I THINK THERE'S TOO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF, UH, OF AREA THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE. UH, THE LACK OF SETBACKS OR THE INSUFFICIENT SETBACKS, UH, FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS. YOU ARE WELCOME, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GIBBS. YES, SIR. UM, SO MY, UM, THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT. SO I, I ECHO, UM, PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER STATED, BUT, UM, AND LISTENING TO YOUR COMMENTS, AND WE, OF COURSE, THE STAFF HAS THESE 13 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU, AND YOU CLEARLY STATED THAT YOU CAN, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SATISFY 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, AND 13. UM, YOU DIDN'T CLEARLY STATE HOW OR IF YOU WERE PLANNING ON ADDRESSING 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, AND 11. SO WHEN I LOOK AT THIS PROJECT, AND, UM, ALONG WITH WHAT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE, THE SIDE YARD BACKYARD, I UNDERSTAND THE ORIENTATION OF UNIT ONE, AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S THE BACKYARD. AND THEN THE OTHER IS TWO, THREE, EXCUSE ME, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR OR THE SIDE YARD BECAUSE OF HOW THE ENTRANCE IS ORIENTED TOWARD, TOWARDS MESQUITES. HOWEVER, I'D LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THOSE ITEMS BRIEFLY BECAUSE, UM, I, AS I SEE THIS PROJECT NOW, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME, YOU KNOW, SUPPORTING THIS. SO CAN YOU ADDRESS THOSE PLEASE? UM, DO YOU WANT ME TO GO THROUGH ONE, TWO, AND THREE? IS THAT THAT, WELL, THE THING IS, IS THAT I, I DON'T WANNA PROLONG THIS, THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, HOWEVER, I'M, I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY YOU WERE SPECIFICALLY WANNA FOCUS ON THE ONES THAT YOU MENTIONED, BUT NOT THE OTHER ONES THAT I MENTIONED THAT WERE STILL OUTSTANDING THERE. SO I DON'T NEED YOU TO GO THROUGH 'EM INDIVIDUALLY. I JUST NEED TO GET A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THAT BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS IN THIS PROJECT BECAUSE SOME, SOMETHING TO ME IS MISSING HERE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. UH, YEAH, TO, TO MR. QUEZ, UH, IS POINT, YOU KNOW, THE ITEMS THAT I HIGHLIGHTED IN TERMS OF, UM, BEING ABLE TO ACHIEVE, I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, GOES INTO THE SPECIFICS OF, UH, ONCE THE, THE PROJECT IS, IS DEVELOPED AND MOVE, MOVE FORWARD FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, PERMIT DOCUMENTS AND SO FORTH, THAT, THAT WE CAN ESSENTIALLY, UH, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE ALUMINUM PLAID WINDOWS THAT WE CAN, UM, JUST KIND OF PROVIDE, UH, ROOF OVERHANGS IF NECESSARY IN ORDER TO, TO, UM, ACHIEVE THE STIPULATIONS. AND, UM, SO, SO THE ITEMS THAT I DID HIGHLIGHT WERE, UH, ITEMS THAT I FELT WERE, UH, GETTING A LITTLE TOO DETAILED IN, IN THIS PHASE, YOU KNOW, OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. UM, AND THEN THE, THE OTHER ITEMS THAT I BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON WERE, WERE KIND OF MY, UM, THE RE THE REASONS FOR WHY I DID CERTAIN THINGS. UM, AND YOU KNOW, WHY THE, THE BUILDINGS ARE, UH, DO FRONT NORTH MESQUITE AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT NOT ALL FOUR UNITS CAN FRONT HONDO, RIGHT? SO, UM, SO I KIND OF HAVE A LITTLE, UH, HESITATION ON THOSE COMMENTS, UM, IN REGARDS TO THE PROVIDING CLARIFICATION, UH, [01:20:01] TO THOSE, YOU KNOW, TO THOSE STIPULATIONS BECAUSE IT'S NOT, NOT NECESSARILY, UM, ACHIEVABLE IN, IN TERMS OF, UH, IF WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY UNITS FOR THIS PROPERTY. HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH, IT'S, IT'S, TO ME, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE. IT, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE, YOU'RE KIND OF SKIRTING OVER SOMETHING, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S FINE. UM, YOU'VE, YOU'VE ANSWERED THE QUESTION I, I GUESS TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY. SO, MR. CHAIR, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER GROOVE? YEAH, I, UM, I CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER AND ALSO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, AND, AND I DID READ THE NOTES FROM THE D R C AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, CHAIR, YOU WERE PRESENT AND I THINK YOU TOUCHED UPON A LOT OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE ACTUALLY HERE. STILL A STIPULATION. SO I'M NOT SURE THE APPLICANT IS GETTING A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE NEED. I AM ALSO AFRAID THAT AS PRESENTED TODAY, UM, I MEAN, IT WON'T WORK AT THE END, EVEN IF WE WERE TO, YOU KNOW, PROVE CONCEPTUAL, ALL THESE STIPULATIONS, UM, THERE'S GONNA BE CHANGES IN THE SITE PLAN. UM, I THINK THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO EITHER, YOU KNOW, COME BACK THROUGH ANOTHER D R C OR COME BACK ADDRESSING SOME OF THESE STIPULATIONS. NOT ALL OF THEM. I DO AGREE SOME OF THEM CAN BE WORKED UP A FINAL, BUT I THINK THE DRIVEWAYS ARE IMPORTANT. YOU CANNOT HAVE THAT MANY CURB CUTS. I MEAN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S FOUND, UM, YOU'RE ASKING FOR THREE NEW CURB CUTS, I BELIEVE. I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE IMPORTANT. I THINK THE SETBACK IS VERY IMPORTANT. I DO THINK THAT YOU NEED TO DO SOME MORE RESEARCH, UM, ON THAT. 'CAUSE EVEN IF WE WOULD APPROVE IT, UH, I DON'T THINK YOU'LL GET IT FURTHER DOWN. SORRY, THAT'S . UM, SO JUST I WOULD SUGGEST GOING TO D R C. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP, UH, COMMISSIONER GROOVE'S SUGGESTION AND MOVE THAT THIS BE, UH, DEFERRED TO A D R C IN THE NEAR FUTURE. UH, CHAIRMAN CARPENTER, I'LL SECOND THAT, BUT , BECAUSE THERE, I THINK THERE'S SOME COMMENTS THAT, THAT I WANT TO JUST FOLLOW UP ON. UH, WELL, LET'S GET A SECOND ON THE MOTION AND THEN I SECOND IT. I'M SECOND. THANK YOU. I'M SEC. I'M SECOND MR. CHAIR. I, I JUST WANNA ADDRESS THESE COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT. UH, IT, IT, IT SEEMS TO ME, I MEAN, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I, I, I SEE THAT, THAT YOU ARE IN A, IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION BECAUSE YOU MADE A DECISION TO ADDRESS H D R C BEFORE, AND I, AND I CAN, I MEAN, AND, AND JUST TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU'RE GONNA GET THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED IN ORDER TO GO TO THE, THE DRAWING TABLE, RIGHT? I, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT BEFORE A MOTION IS, IS TAKEN OR, UH, VOTED ON THAT YOU, YOU TAKE THIS PROJECT OFF THAT YOU RESCIND YOUR APPLICATION, UH, THERE ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT COMMISSIONER CARPENTER WAS SAYING, THERE MAY BE A BETTER STARTING POINT FOR YOU, AND THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST ADVISED AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TABLE. THAT, UM, PROBABLY AT THE LEVEL OF REALLY MAKING SOME REAL BASIC DECISIONS, EVEN WITH THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN FROM US, TO GO TO YOUR CUS TO, TO YOUR CLIENT AND TELL YOUR CLIENT THAT, LOOK, YOU KNOW, I WOULD REALLY FOCUS ON THE MASSING AS WHY YOU WOULD NEED TO GO AND HAVE A, A REALLY DECISION AS TO WHETHER YOU WANT TO TAKE ON A MASSING ARGUMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR WITH THE COMMISSION. UM, IT, ALL YOU CAN DO IS GO BY, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, WHAT YOUR GUT FEELING IS, RIGHT? 'CAUSE IT DOES SEND YOU BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. UM, BUT I, I WOULD THINK THAT YOU'RE IN A ZONING SITUATION OR YOU'RE IN A PLANNING SITUATION, AND, AND THAT IS GONNA ASK YOU TO MAKE SOME JUST EDUCATED GUESSES ON HOW CLOSE YOU CAN GET BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU, IT'S LIKE YOU, YOU'RE THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG RIGHT NOW. THERE'S NO WAY TO TELL YOU THAT IF, IF YOU GET A, UH, A, UH, A, UH, CONSULTATION AT OUR LEVEL, THAT THAT'S GONNA ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THE, AT THE PLANNING LEVEL OR AT WHATEVER LEVEL YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, UH, CLIENT WANTS. BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S, THERE'S, THERE'S TOO MUCH MASS IN, IN THE ENVIRONMENT. SO JUST, I JUST THAT, THAT, THAT THERE AREN'T ANY CONSEQUENCES TO REMOVING IT FROM THE, FROM THE, FROM OUR DOCKET. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO D R C. UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UM, MR. CHAIR, CAN YOU ASK CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER UNE. UH, I WOULD ASK THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, TAKE A LOOK AT THE EXISTING LARGE TREES ON THE SITE AND MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO DESIGN AROUND THOSE SO THOSE COULD BE PRESERVED. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UH, I'LL, YES, I'LL, UH, [01:25:01] REMIND THE APPLICANT THAT THEY, THEY CAN CHOOSE WHEN THEY WANT TO ENGAGE WITH US D R C. THAT COULD OCCUR AFTER, UH, THEY'VE HAD THAT CONSULTATION WITH OTHER PEOPLE AT D S D. SO I THINK, UH, THE MOTION CAN STILL STAND. THEY STILL HAVE OPTIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MAY HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE, MR. CHAIR. MR. CHAIR, I'M WONDERING IF WHETHER OR NOT THAT THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS, UH, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A DENIAL HERE IF THEY REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE? YEAH, NO, I, I THINK I WOULD BE OPEN TO REMOVING IT. UM, AND, AND HAVING FURTHER, UH, CONVERSATIONS ON, ON WHAT ADJUSTMENTS NEED TO BE MADE MOVING FORWARD. UM, YOU KNOW, IN, IN REVISITING H D R C, IF POSSIBLE, DOES THE APPLICANT WAS TO WITHDRAW? YES. OKAY, THEN WE DON'T NEED A MOTION. ALRIGHT, JUST A CLARIFICATION. THE MOTION WAS ACTUALLY JUST TO DEFER IT TO DRC, NOT TO DENY, RIGHT, RIGHT. UH, CLARIFICATION WITH, UH, OUR ATTORNEY, WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. DO WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE? THE APPLICANT HAS, UH, APPARENTLY WITHDRAWN ITS APPLICATION, AND SO, UM, NO MOTION IS NEEDED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BUT JUST I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND. BUT I'LL JUST SAY IT AGAIN THAT THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO WORK WITH THE D R C AT ANY TIME. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE REFERRED THERE TO DO THAT. SO JUST REACH OUT TO EDWARD WHEN YOU'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOMETHING, OKAY? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK NEXT ITEM. ITEM 27, AS I MENTIONED, HAS BEEN POSTPONED. IT WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 28. [28. Address/Description: 711 MATAGORDA HDRC Case No.: 2021-121 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: Mark Reina/Alamo City Construction & Supply LLC. Request: Side screened porch installation City Council Dist.: 1] RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? YES. ITEM 28 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 1 21 7 11 MATAGORDA. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE CONSTRUCT, A REAR SCREEN PORCH EDITION TO BE APPROXIMATELY 144 SQUARE FEET. TWO, REMOVE WINDOWS FROM THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THREE, INSTALL SEAMLESS GUTTERS ALONG THE SOUTH AND NORTH ELEVATIONS. UH, SINCE THE AGENDA WAS POSTED, THE APPLICANT HAS CONSENTED TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND HAS AGREED TO WORK WITH STAFF ON, UH, FINDING A GUTTER SYSTEM THAT WILL NOT OBSCURE THE EXPOSED RAFTER TAIL. HOWEVER, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHERRY HESS, IS ON THE LINE TO ANSWER ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. MR. I'M HERE. MR. CHAIR, CAN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? YES, SIR. DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS CASE? WE DO NOT. UM, IF THE STAFF HAS AGREED, UH, TO THE STIPULATIONS, I WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS ONE AND TWO AS STAFF STIPULATIONS AND NOT THREE. I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. FISH. AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VASQUEZ? AYE. UH, CARPENTER, THAT'S JUST ONE AND TWO. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. CARPENTER. AYE GROUP. AYE, UH, THATER. AYE. LI AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. [29. Address/Description: 631 CEDAR ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-158 Historic District Name: King William Applicant: Jay Cupp Request: Roof replacement, siding repairs City Council Dist.: 1] UM, ITEM 29. AND WHO IS GETTING THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE RIGHT NOW? YES. ITEM NUMBER 29, CASE NUMBER 20 21 1 58 AT 6 31 CEDAR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, REPLACE THE EXISTING ALUMINUM SIDING TO INSTALL WOOD LAP SIDING, MATCHING THE HISTORIC PROFILE. TWO, REPLACE THE STANDING SEA METAL ROOF WITH A 50 YEAR COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF BASED ON THE SHAKE SHINGLES UNDERNEATH. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM. DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE BASED ON THE FINDINGS FOR SIDING. REPLACEMENT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO ROOFING MATERIAL CHANGE BASED ON FINDING D AND E IN KIND. ROOF REPLACEMENT IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL WITH ADHERENCE TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR METAL ROOF REPLACEMENT, INCLUDING NO STRIATION ANDRIDGE CAPS. THIS CASE DOES COME TO US AS A COMPLIANCE CASE FOR WORK WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. BUT UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION WITH THE CONTRACTOR, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PERMIT MANAGER STAFF CONCLUDED THAT THE APPLICANT WAS WORKING IN GOOD FAITH THAT A PERMIT HAD BEEN ISSUED AND PAID FOR. THE APPLICANT WAS COOPERATIVE TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE APPLICATION TO BE HEARD AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE HEARING. AND I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT, UH, JAY ON THE LINE. JAY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF WITH SOME OPENING COMMENTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION ADDRESSES THEIR QUESTIONS. UM, YES. MY NAME IS JACOB. I'M WORKING AT THE PROPERTY AT, UH, 6 31 CEDAR. UM, WE HAD, UH, WENT DOWN TH [01:30:01] THIS IS THE FIRST HISTORIC, UH, DISTRICT HOUSE THAT I'VE DONE. UM, I WENT IN, I ASKED HOW THINGS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE, UM, IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICE THERE. THEY SAID Y'ALL HAD STARTED A NEW SYSTEM, I GUESS IN JANUARY, I BELIEVE IT WAS. UM, THEY TOLD ME THAT I NEEDED TO COME IN, FILL OUT THE APPLICATION, SUBMIT ANYTHING I NEEDED TO OVER TO O H P, WHICH I DID TO I BELIEVE, UH, ELLE AND I SUBMITTED, UM, THE ROOFING MATERIALS AND THE SIDING, UM, IN AN EMAIL TO HER THAT, THAT WE WANTED TO, UM, PUT ON THE HOUSE. AND THEN THEY SAID THAT I WOULD GET A PHONE CALL FROM THE CITY WHENEVER IT WAS APPROVED TO COME DOWN AND PAY FOR THE PERMITS. UH, A FEW DAYS AFTER I SUBMITTED THAT, UH, TO RACHEL OR ROCHELLE, UM, I GOT A CALL FROM THE CITY TO COME DOWN AND PAY FOR THE PERMITS. AND WHEN I WENT DOWN TO GET THE PERMITS, THEY SAID, UM, GO AHEAD AND, UH, GO TO THE WINDOW, PAY FOR THE PERMITS AND YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. AND I ASKED 'EM, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I NEED TO DO? UH, THEY AT THAT TIME TOLD ME NO, THAT EVERYTHING WAS APPROVED AND READY TO GO. SO I WENT BACK, WE PUT ON THE ROOF, UH, GOT ALL THE SIDING DONE. THE JOB IS ABOUT 99% DONE AS WE SPEAK. UM, AND THEN I GET A CALL FROM MR. UH, FAM, OR AN EMAIL, I'M SORRY, AT EIGHT O'CLOCK AT NIGHT SAYING, UM, THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THE ROOFING, UM, OR SIDING. I WENT AHEAD AND, UM, SENT THAT OVER TO HIM AND, UM, I GUESS HE'D COME TO FIND OUT, UH, WE SPOKE WITH MR. CASTILLO AND HE SAID THERE WAS JUST A GLITCH OR AND ERROR IN THE SYSTEM AND THAT I GUESS THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE ME COME DOWN AND PAY FOR THE PERMITS. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S ON THAT SIDE OF THE, THE SYSTEM THERE AND NOT ON MY OWN PART, BUT I MEAN, IF THERE'S SOMETHING I NEED TO DO HERE TO, UH, REMEDY THE SITUATION AND GET THIS JOB DONE, I'D LOVE TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. I BELIEVE WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS. WE DO. WE HAVE A LIVE CALLER, LISA LIND, AND I BELIEVE STEPHANIE HAS HER ON THE LINE. LISA, DID YOU WANNA SHARE YOUR STATEMENT? YEAH, UM, FIRST I JUST, UH, REALLY QUICKLY WANNA SAY YOU GUYS DO HAVE THE LETTER IN YOUR PACKET, HOWEVER, THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT LATE LAST NIGHT, UM, HAD THE WRONG ADDRESS ON IT, BUT THE BODY OF THE LETTER IS WHAT I'M GOING TO BE READING. SO IF YOU NOTICE THAT IT HAS A DIFFERENT ADDRESS, THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT WE WANNA SAY REGARDING CEDAR DEAR COMMISSIONERS, THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND DOES NOT CONCUR WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF NUMBER ONE OF ITEM NUMBER ONE, NEW SITING. THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT PRIOR REVIEW BY O H P AND THE APPLICANT DID NOT OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AS CITED BY THE O H P STAFF. THE GUIDELINES FOR EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE AND ALTERATIONS STATE THAT FACADE MATERIALS SHOULD BE REPLACED IN KIND OR REPAIRED. THE PHOTO ON PAGE NINE OF THE APPLICATION ILLUSTRATES THAT THE PROFILED WOOD SIDING IN WHAT APPEARS TO BE IN GOOD CONDITION EXISTED UNDER THE ALUMINUM SIDING. INSTEAD OF PRESERVING THE HISTORIC MATERIAL, NEW WOOD MATERIAL OF A DIFFERENT PROFILE WAS APPLIED OVER IT. NOW, THE NEW WOOD SIDING IS IN THE SAME PLANE AS THE WINDOW AND DOOR TRIM, WHICH IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE HISTORIC DETAIL. UM, AND I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE PHOTOS ON PAGE 19 AND 20. ADDITIONALLY, THE LOUVER VENT IN THE FRONT FACING DORMER SHOULD BE REINSTALLED. IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES THIS APPLICATION, IT WILL SET A PRECEDENT FOR ALLOWING NEGLIGENCE IN SEEKING REQUIRED PRIOR APPROVAL AS AN EXCUSE NOT TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES. SINCERELY, THE KING WILLIAM ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WERE Y'ALL ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN O H P AND D S D ON, UH, ISSUING THIS PERMIT? CORRECT. D S D HAS, UH, EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS A GLITCH IN WHICH IT APPEARED TO BE, UH, APPROVED BY HISTORIC, AND, UH, THEY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT PART OF THE REVIEW. MR. MR. CHAIR, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. YES, SIR. MR. CHAIR. UM, THERE, THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY WAY FOR, UH, COMMISSION TO TAKE ACTION ON A SITUATION THAT WAS CREATED BY NO FAULT OF THE, OF THE APPLICANT AND NO FAULT OF O H P OR NO FAULT OF, UH, H D R C. I THINK ONE OF THE WORDS THAT WAS USED IN THIS LETTER HAS TO BE CLARIFIED FOR THE, FOR THE SAKE OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT USED A REALLY STRONG WORD LIKE NEGLIGENCE. THE, THE WORD IS NO LESS VALID [01:35:01] FOR HOWEVER, UH, THIS, THIS, UH, PROJECT DID NOT RECEIVE ITS ITS OWN, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, DUE DILIGENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCESS. RIGHT? SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY HARD. THAT LETTER WAS VERY, VERY, A VERY TOUGH LETTER, VERY ACCUSATORY. AND IT'S, AND IT'S, UH, IN ITS LETTER, YOU KNOW, SO I I I WOULD MOVE, UM, MR. CHAIR, THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER COMMENTS TO, TO, UH, UH, APPROVE AS, UH, SUBMITTED WITH, UH, MAKING NOTE OF, UH, THE FACTS, UH, THAT THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THIS, UH, UM, OWNER. AND I THINK THAT THAT TERM, THAT THAT, THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT IS NOT THE NEGLIGENCE OF THIS OWNER. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE OWNER, UH, BECAUSE IT WILL SHOW UP IN A LETTER THAT'S IN THE FILE. UH, BUT IF THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER COMMENTS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT BASED ON, UH, UH, THE, THE, WHAT, WHAT HAS BEEN DONE. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I, I AM, UM, SYMPATHETIC TO THE KING WILLIAM, UH, ASSOCIATION'S, UH, COMMISSIONERS CONCERN ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS SITUATION. BUT I, I DON'T THINK, UH, THAT WE CAN HANG THAT ON THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S, UH, REPRESENTATIVE HERE. SO I CONCUR WITH THE, THE MOTION SECONDED. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. THE, THE PART OF THIS THAT I'M MOST CONCERNED ABOUT, I'M, I'M NOT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ROOF MATERIAL, GIVEN THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A, OF A SHAKE ROOF UNDERNEATH THE METAL ROOF. UM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROFILE AND THE NEWLY CREATED PROFILE CONDITION, HOW THE SIDING MEETS THE WINDOW TRIM AND THE EDGE PIECES. SO, UH, I SHARE KING WILLIAMS ON THAT FOR ONE SECOND. UH, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION HAS COMPLETED, SO WE ARE IN COMMISSIONER REVIEW RIGHT NOW. OKAY, SO OTHER QUESTION, OTHER COMMENTS BY THE COMMISSION? ANY DISCUSSION? THIS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I WOULD, I WOULD MAYBE JUST SUGGEST TO THE OWNER, THE OWNER'S APPLICANT THAT THEY, THEY SEEK TO MAYBE SOMEHOW COMPLY WITH SOME OF THE REQUESTS FROM THE KING WILLIAMS ASSOCIATION VOLUNTARILY, LIKE PUTTING BACK THE, UH, THE LOUVER, UH, VENT IN THE, UH, THAT KIND OF DISTINCTIVE DORMER ELEMENT. UM, I, I KNOW THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL COST, BUT YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES, UH, THOSE THINGS CAN HELP WITH, UH, NEIGHBORLY, UH, RELATIONS. JUST A THOUGHT THAT COULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. I WAS GONNA ADD THAT TO THE MOTION. IF THAT, IF THAT COULD BE ACCEPTED. THAT CAN ALSO CLARIFY THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, DOES INTEND ON RESTORING THAT THAT FEATURE. IT WAS, UM, COMPLIED WITH ADMINISTRATIVELY. THAT'S WHY IT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFIC, UM, REQUEST. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH? NAY GIBBS NAY VELASQUEZ AYE. CARPENTER AYE. GROUP. AYE. ZER NAYYY LA NAYYY. UH, MOTION FAILS. I HAVE ANOTHER MOTION. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE, UH, THE CITING AND CONDITIONS ON SITE. SO IF THE OWNER IS WILLING, WILLING TO ALLOW FOR THE D R C SITE VISIT TO LOOK AT THE, THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY, UH, I WOULD MOVE, UH, TO REMAND THIS TO A D R C. WE HAVE A MOTION TO, TO SEND THIS TO A SITE VISIT. D R C. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THIS IS COMMISSIONER GR. I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES, SIR. MR. MR. CHAIR? I JUST, YES, SIR. UH, UH, MR. CHAIR, I JUST, UH, UH, LIKE TO, UH, JUST COMMENT THAT I, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG TO MOVE THE GOALPOST TO INCREASE THE, THE, UM, UH, YOU, YOU KNOW, THE OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE, OF THE OWNER. I MEAN, I THINK IT REALLY STRIKES AT [01:40:01] THE CONFIDENCE OF A PERSON WALKING INTO TO DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AND WALK OUT BELIEVING THAT THEY DID WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. UH, OUR POWER IS NOT ABSOLUTE. WE, WE, WE ARE BOUND BY THE DECISIONS THAT, THAT ARE, UH, THAT ARE COMMITTED TO AND, AND WHAT, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR WHOEVER COMMITTED TO THIS GENTLEMAN THAT HE HAD WAS DOING WHAT HE WAS DOING WHEN HE MADE THE DECISIONS THAT HE MADE. UM, THAT I WOULD, I WOULD SINCERELY, UH, ASK THE, UH, MAKER OF THE MOTION TO RESCIND THAT MOTION. UH, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, I WOULD JUST, I WOULD JUST REMIND THIS GROUP THAT ALL, ALL WE ARE DOING HERE IS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CHIEF, CHIEF PRESERVATION OFFICER AND, UH, THE DEPARTMENT, UH, OR THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ULTIMATELY MAKES A DECISION HERE. SO IF THERE, THERE WAS A PROBLEM ON THE CITY SIDE, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECTIFY THAT. UM, BUT FOR THE COMMISSION , UM, IN A DIFFERENT WAY, WOULD SUGGEST BECAUSE A SITUATION LIKE THAT, I, I, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERN WITH, UH, THE, THE SITE VISIT, UH, MIGHT OFFER SOME CLARITY AND, UH, RESOLUTION MORE QUICKLY THAN A PROCESS LIKE THAT. VERY GOOD. MI MR. CHAIR, CAN WE ASK STAFF TO CLARIFY SOMETHING? IT, IT'S, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT THERE'S A CLOSURE, POTENTIAL CLOSURE TO THIS, TO THIS PROCESS BASED ON THE MISTAKE THAT WAS, THAT WAS DONE BY, BY, UH, THE CITY. SO IF IT GOES TO D R C, THEN IT STAYS OPEN, RIGHT? THAT, THAT, THAT ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AN OPEN ISSUE. AND IF, IF THEY END UP IN THE PURVIEW OF O H P, THEY ONLY END UP IN THE PER PURVIEW OF O H P BECAUSE IT IS AN OPEN ISSUE. IF THE ISSUE WAS CLOSED, IT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO O H P OR THE DECISIONS OF, OF ANYBODY TO MAKE RIGHT WHAT THEY DID WRONG AT THE EXPENSE OF THIS APPLICANT. IS THAT RIGHT, COREY? I MEAN IT EITHER CLOSE IT OR LEAVE IT OPEN. JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, BEFORE THE WORK WAS DONE, THE PERMITS WERE NOT ISSUED. SO IT'S NOT EVEN AN, AN ISSUE WITH PERMITS BEING ISSUED IN ERROR. IT'S THAT THEY APPEARED ISSUED IN A SYSTEM, BUT THEY WERE NOT. AND SO THAT, LET ME FINISH 'CAUSE I KNOW, I KNOW WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS. UM, BUT I ALSO WANNA STATE THAT EVEN IF THEY HAD BEEN ISSUED AN ERROR, THE CITY IS NOT BOUND TO THEN ALLOW WHAT HAD HAPPENED. UM, I UNDERSTAND IT'S OKAY TO BE SYMPATHETIC TO THE SITUATION, BUT THE CITY IS NOT OBLIGATED HERE TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE OF THE ERROR THAT TOOK PLACE. WELL, AND, AND COREY AND I, I APPRECIATE THAT, COREY, BUT YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO GO HOME AND LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, THAT WHAT, WHAT YOU JUST SAID, IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE ANY MORE SENSE TO YOU THAN IT, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT WE TALK ABOUT THE INTEGRITY AND THE CONFIDENCE, RIGHT? THIS IS AN ACTION THAT STRIKES AT THE VERY PAPER THAT WAS GIVEN TO US TODAY, THAT, THAT, THAT FROM, FROM LEGAL, THAT SAID THAT WE'RE TO BEHAVE IN A WAY THAT UPHOLDS AND CREATES, UH, CONFIDENCE IN BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. RIGHT? WHERE'S THE CONSISTENCY IN THAT? THE CON UH, A CONFIDENCE TO WHO? TO THE APPLICANT, CONFIDENCE TO THE CITIZEN, NOT TO US, TO THE EXTERNAL, UH, UH, TO THE PARTICIPANT IN THIS PROCESS WHERE ONE WOULD ONLY HAVE REASONABLE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO RECEIVE A JUST AND FAIR, UH, HEARING. UM, SO IT'S NOT, IT, IT, IT WASN'T, IT PERMITS WEREN'T ISSUED BECAUSE OF A MISTAKE. THE GENTLEMAN, THE GENTLEMAN WAS VERY CLEAR THAT HE WAS, AND THERE WAS NOBODY THAT REFUTE THAT, WHAT THE GENTLEMAN IS SAYING. COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ? YES. THIS IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION, IT'S JUST SENDING IT TO A D R C FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION. SO I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A VOTE, PLEASE. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL? UH, FISH. AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ CARPENTER. AYE. RU AYE BE AYE LI AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. UM, ITEM [30. Address/Description: 227 FURR DR HDRC Case No.: 2021-131 Historic District Name: Monticello Park Applicant: Jesus Garza/GARZA JESUS H & MARI T Request: Driveway replacement City Council Dist.: 7] 30, RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE? YES. ITEM 30 H D R CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 1 3 1 2 2 7 FUR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RIBBON DRIVEWAY WITH A FULL CONCRETE DRIVEWAY. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS. A THROUGH D STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT REPLACES THE CONCRETE RIBBON DRIVEWAY TO MATCH EXISTING AND FOOTPRINT [01:45:01] AND MATERIAL PERVIOUS PAVERS MAY BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE REPLACED CONCRETE RIBBON DRIVEWAY. AND THE OWNER JESUS GARZA, IS ON THE LINE. JESUS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN YOUR REQUEST TO THE COMMISSION? HI. HI, I AM THIS . MY WIFE IS HERE AS WELL. HI, I AM MARI TOME GARZA. UM, THANK YOU. YES. ONE OF THE, OUR SITUATION THAT OUR, OUR, OUR DRIVEN, OUR DRIVEWAY IS BROKEN UP. UH, IT HAS NO STRUCTURE, THERE'S NO BASE, THERE'S NO, HELLO? OH NO, HOLD ON ONE SECOND. JUST LET ME END THIS OTHER CALL. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. ALRIGHT, THANKS. UM, I, WE, WE REQUESTING A FULL DRIVE, A A FULL WIDTH DRIVEWAY. HE SAYS WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR OUR VEHICLES, SO WHEN WE GET OFF THE CAR, WE STEP ON THE GRASS ON WET GRASS OR ON MUD. UM, I'LL GIVE YOU THE DIMENSIONS IN A MINUTE. UM, WHAT WE HAD REQUESTED ORIGINALLY IS A FULL, A FULL 10 WIDTH DRIVEWAY WITH A PEBBLE FINISH. WE'RE WI WILLING TO, UM, NOT DO THE PEBBLE FINISH. UM, I MET WITH DRE GARZA, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT, AND BIANCA MALDONADO, A, A BOARD MEMBER AND A, A PREVIOUS H C R C BOARD MEMBER AS WELL. AND THEY SUGGESTED IF I WERE TO DO A SOLID DRIVEWAY TO GIVE HONOR AND GIVE TO THE HISTORY OF THE CON OF THE, UH, RIBBON DRIVEWAY BY STAMPING THAT, THAT DRIVEWAY WHERE IT, WHERE IT IS TODAY, OTHER WORDS, IN OTHER WORDS, HAVE THE CONCRETE WORK DONE THAT REFLECTS FOR THE ORIGINAL DRIVEWAY. DRIVEWAY WAS DONE. UH, ANOTHER THING IS THAT NOW WE HAVE OUR DRIVEWAY APPROACHES ARE NOT WHAT THEY WERE ON THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. WE HAD DRIVEWAY APPROACHES THAT WERE, IN MY CASE WHERE IT MAKES US SET SIDEWALK WAS SEVEN, SEVEN FEET, UM, SEVEN AND A HALF INCHES. NOW IT IS 11 FOOT WIDE AND, UH, THE CURB IS 14 FOOT WIDE, OR IT WAS ABOUT 10 FOOT WIDE. SO THE ENTIRE STREET SCAPE HAS BEEN, UH, REDONE WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HER DRIVE. SO NONE OF THE, NONE OF THE HISTORICAL ORIGINAL DRIVEWAY APPROACHES ARE THERE. THEY'RE GONE. NOW, THERE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES OF THIS CURRENT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE PHOTOS IN FRONT OF YOU. UM, I'LL REFER TO PHOTO NUMBER. LEMME SEE HERE. UM, YES, FOR EXAMPLE, PHOTO NUMBER 16 SHOWS THE, THE NEW, UH, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES ALL THAT WERE, AND 17 AS WELL THAT WERE ALL REDONE, UH, WITH A, WITH A RECENT BOND PROJECT THAT JUST FINISHED ABOUT A MONTH AGO ON, ON THIRD DRIVE. SO EVERY DRIVEWAY HAS AN ADDITIONAL APPROXIMATELY 48 SQUARE FEET OF PAVEMENT EVERY DRIVEWAY APPROACH, AND THEY DO NOT MATCH THE EXISTING DRIVEWAYS. UH, SO I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A 10 FOOT WIDE SO WE CAN GET OFF OUR CARS SAFELY. UH, CURRENTLY THE DRIVEWAY, MY, AS MY DRIVEWAY, UH, GOING UP TO MY, MY LANDING, WHERE MY STEPS ARE TO THE HOUSE IS I HAVE TWO DIMENSIONS. IT, THE DRIVEWAY SERVES AS A SIDEWALK AND AS A DRIVE PATH. SO THE ONE WIDTH IS 36, UH, 30 FEET WIDE AS THE, THE SIDEWALK LEADING UP SIDEWALK DRIVE FOR A COMBINATION LEADING UP TO OUR LANDING, UH, WHERE OUR STEPS ARE. AND THE OTHER ONE IS 24 INCHES WIDE. BEYOND THE LANDING, THE WHOLE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY OF THE PAVEMENT EDGE TO EDGE, EDGE IS SIX AND A HALF FEET. SO WHEN I PARK MY TRUCK, WHEN I DRIVE MY TRUCK, I ONLY HAVE ONE INCH TWO SPARE ON EACH SIDE OF THE, OF THE VEHICLE. UM, AND THAT'S ALSO KIND OF DEPICTED ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS, UH, WHERE THE TRUCK IS. AND I CAN'T, I CAN'T OPEN THE DOOR WITHOUT HITTING THE, THE HOUSE, UH, ON, ON THE VEHICLE. SO, UH, SO I, UH, SO THE, THE RECOMMENDATION OR THE SUGGESTIONS FROM OUR, FROM OUR PRESIDENT AND BOARD MEMBER WERE IF TO TRY TO DO A A IF WE'RE GONNA GO WITH A SOLID DRIVEWAY TO A LEASE STAMP WHERE THE ORIGINAL RIBBON DRIVEWAY IS, IT CANNOT. THERE ARE ALSO SOME EXAMPLES OF OTHER, UH, DRIVEN RIBBON DRIVEWAYS THAT I'VE INCLUDED. UH, AND THEY'RE IN, IN REALLY BAD SHAPE. WE'VE GOT EXPANSIVE SOIL [01:50:01] AND BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FOUNDATION TO THESE, THERE'S NO SOLID BASE, NO, NO, NO WIRE MESH, NO UM, REBAR, UH, THEY'RE ALL BROKEN. THEY CAN'T BE REPAIRED. IT HAS TO BE COMPLETELY REPLACED. I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. OKAY, THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, UM, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO REPLACE THE EXISTING, UH, DRIVEWAY, BUT TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT, UH, REMEMBER, UH, THAT RETAINS A MEMORY OF THE, UH, UH, RIBBON TIRE STRIPES AND, UM, TO WORK WITH, UH, O H P STAFF ON WHAT THAT, UH, MATERIAL, UH, SHOULD BE. WHETHER IT'S A CONCRETE OF A DIFFERENT TEXTURE, UH, SCORING OR WHAT HAVE YOU. I THINK THIS IS A, A PARTICULARLY NARROW AND TIGHT CONSTRAINED SITE AND UH, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE WITH THE REQUESTING I'LL, I'LL SECOND THAT. MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION CHAIR? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMENT SOMETHING. YES, COMMISSIONER? UM, YEAH, AND IT TOOK A WHILE I WAS GOING DOWN TO GOOGLE OR UM, GOOGLE MAP. I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A BIG AMOUNT OF PROPERTIES ON THIS STREET AND BLOCK THAT HAVE, UH, A CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AND I THINK THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A LOT OF PICTURES OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. I DO, UH, CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S SUGGESTION. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HAVE FOR ROLL CALL PLEASE? THIS AYE GIBBS, UH, COMMISSIONER GIBBS? HELLO? AYE. OKAY. UH, VELAZQUEZ. AYE. CARPENTER? AYE GROUP. AYE. MR. C**N? THERE WE GO. THATER. AYE. LA AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. [31. Address/Description: 934 DAWSON ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-159 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: JESSICA WALKER/JD Walker Designs Request: Addition City Council Dist.: 2] ITEM 31, WHO ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? YES. ITEM NUMBER 31, CASE NUMBER 20 21 1 59 AT 9 34 DAWSON, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, CONSTRUCT A REAR TWO STORY ADDITION. TWO, REPLACE THE FRONT FACING DOOR WITH A NEW WINDOW AND MODIFY OR REMOVE UP TO NINE WINDOW OPENINGS. AND THREE, REPLACE THE METAL ROOF WITH A COMPOSITION SHINGLE. ROOF. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE. THE ADDITION BASED ON FINDING B THROUGH J WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE VISUAL TRANSITION B INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN SUCH AS A VERTICAL TRIM PIECE BETWEEN NEW AND OLD FORMS. TWO, THAT THE FINAL WINDOW PRODUCT SHOULD ADHERE TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOWS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMITTED TO STAFF PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO DOOR REPLACEMENT AND WINDOW MODIFICATION BASED ON FINDING J TO ACCOMMODATE INTERIOR FLOOR PLANS. THE APPLICANT MAY INSTALL INTERIOR FUR WALLS WITHOUT REMOVING, MODIFYING, OR INFILL EXISTING EXTERIOR OPENINGS AS STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM THREE. CHANGE TO ROOFING MATERIAL BASED ON FINDING L AND M IN KIND REPLACEMENT OF STANDING C METAL ROOF IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL WITH ADHERENCE TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR METAL ROOFS. I HAVE THE APPLICANT BRUCE ON THE LINE. UH, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THE STIPULATIONS OF THE ADDITION. SO I BELIEVE BRUCE WILL SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS AS WELL AS THE CHANGE IN REROOF. GO AHEAD BRUCE. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. UM, AGAIN, THIS IS BRUCE AND GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONER AND UM, BOARD MEMBERS THANK YOU FOR GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT MY CASE FOR 9 34 DAWSON. THE ITEMS AGREED UPON THAT WITH THE ADDITION INCLUDE THE NINE WINDOWS BEING MODIFIED. TO CLARIFY THAT, IT'S TO ENSURE THAT WE, UM, GATHER THE WINDOWS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE AND MAINTAIN THE FRONT FACADE AND THEN ALSO REFURBISH ALL OF THE WINDOWS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THERE THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN. THE MODIFIED OPENINGS ARE DUE TO THE ADDITION AND THEN ALSO THE NEW WINDOWS, WHICH I HAVE TALKED TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION BASED ON THEIR REQUIREMENTS ON GETTING THOSE WINDOWS AS WELL. AS YOU'LL SEE IN THE PLANS AS FAR AS THE ROOF GOES, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT WE ARE BEING ABLE TO REPLACE IT WITH A SHINGLE ROOF. WE HAVE EIGHT HOUSES THAT ARE DIRECTLY ADJACENT AND OR ON THE SAME BLOCK THAT DO HAVE SHINGLE ROOFS. WITH THIS BEING SAID, THE HOUSE IS BUILT IN 1929 WITH NO RECORD OF THE ROOF BEING REPLACED. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, THE ROOF AND THE [01:55:01] NEW BILLS THAT ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED AS WELL AS THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED IN THE PAST, DO HAVE THE SHINGLED ROOFS IN DIRECT VICINITY. SO THE SECOND THING I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS IS GOING TO BE THE FRONT DOOR. THERE'S CURRENTLY NO DOORS THERE. IF YOU LOOK DIRECTLY IN THE EXHIBIT THAT WE PROVIDED THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION ON NINE 30 DAWSON, THERE IS NO FRONT DOOR FACING. THE STREET HAS BEEN REMOVED. SO, UM, THAT BEING SAID, THAT IS MY CASE. AND THEN PENDING ANY ANYONE'S QUESTIONS, I KNOW THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO KEEP IT BRIEF FROM THE BEGINNING, UM, WHEN WE ALL TALKED ABOUT THAT. SO I'M READY FOR QUESTIONS. OKAY. BEFORE WE GO TO QUESTIONS, I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, CITIZEN COMMENTS. WE DO. UM, THIS COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIG DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. UH, WE SUPPORT STAFF WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE HEIGHT OF THE REAR ADDITION. THE PROPOSED TWO STORY EDITION FAILS TO MEET THE GUIDELINES FOR MASSING AND FORM OF RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS. THE ADDITION IS NOT SUBORDINATE TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. WE REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDES STREET VIEW DRAWINGS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR FURTHER REVIEW. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I CAN SPEAK ON THAT TOO. WE HAVE PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT REAR ADDITION AND THEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ITEMS THAT HAVE STAFF HAVE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED, YOU'LL SEE ON THE ADD-ON FOR THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, WHICH IS GOING TO BE FINDING I BELIEVE G, WHICH IS WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF THE 22 FOOT STORY ADDITION IN THE REAR, IN THE EXISTING 12 FOOT ONE STORY STRUCTURE FINDS THAT THE INCREASED HEIGHT IS APPROPRIATELY SET TO THE REAR, UM, AND WOULD NOT AND WOULD BE MINIMALLY I VISIBLE FROM THE FRONT RIGHT OF WAY OF THE ELEVATED LOT DUE TO THE CURRENT LOCATION. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. YES, SIR. UM, DRAWING 17, THIS IS ABOUT THE REAR ADDITION SHOWS A GABLE END FACING THE STREET AND A HIP ROOF FACING THE BACKYARD. IS THAT CORRECT? YES SIR. BUT THE ELEVATION ON 18, THE REAR ELEVATION SHOWS A GABLE AS WELL AS THE FRONT ELEVATION SHOWS A GABLE. SO WONDERING WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR THE ROOF OF THAT REAR ADDITION? THE ROOF, UM, HAS, SO FROM WHAT I'M SEEING IS THE DRAWING, IT'S SHOWING THAT THE PITCH AND THEN THE FRONT OF IT IS JUST SHOWING THE REFLECTIVE OF THE ROOF. SO WITH THE FRONT ELEVATION AND BACK ELEVATION, THAT WILL BE WHAT THE PITCH IS WITH THE ADDITION WE ARE ADDING ONTO THE BACK. SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE THERE IS THAT ON BOTH SIDES THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE WHAT YOU SEE IS A, UM, UM, THE ADDITION SITTING ON TOP OF THE HOUSE. YES. BUT THE, THE ROOF ON TOP OF THE ADDITION, THE SIDE ELEVATION SHOWS A HIP ROOF FACING THE REAR, BUT YOUR REAR ELEVATION SHOWS A GABLE INSTEAD OF A HIP, IT WILL BE A GABLE ELEVATION. SO YOU'RE DRAWING ON, UH, NUMBER 17 IS INCORRECT ON YOUR ROOF FORM FOR THE ADDITION? CORRECT. OKAY. AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS, IS NINE FEET ACTUALLY REQUIRED FOR THAT SECOND STORY ADDITION? IT'S AN OFFICE. WOULD A EIGHT FOOT CEILING, WHICH WOULD BRING THE, THE SCALE OF THAT DOWN A BIT, BE MORE APPROPRIATE. UM, IF IT MEETS WITHIN THE GUIDELINES, IT'S A CURRENT PLAN. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST. UM, AS FAR AS THE ROOF AND PITCHING THAT GOES. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE MEETING THE, UM, FACADE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL TO KEEP IN CHARACTERISTIC, UM, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S ALSO, UM, THIS ILLUSTRATED, SO IT IS GOING TO BE, UM, WHAT, WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT, THE CORRECTION WOULD BE, BUT AS FAR AS A EIGHT FOOT ROOF IT'S WITHIN, WE WOULD STILL PREFER IT TO BE THE ADDITION THAT'S PRESENTED BASED ON WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS AS STATED IN G. OKAY. AND THEN ONE LAST QUESTION. DOES THE EXISTING ROOF LEAK CURRENTLY? UM, CURRENTLY I CAN GO IN THERE AND DOUBLE [02:00:01] CHECK, BUT THE ROOF ITSELF, UM, IS CORRODED. SO I WOULD PRESUME YES, I HAVE NOT ACTUALLY BEEN IN THE HOUSE WHEN IT WAS LEAKING, BUT IT IS A DILAPIDATED HOME IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH REMOVING STRUCTURES OF THAT NATURE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I USED TO DO IS DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE TO REVITALIZE NEIGHBORHOODS IN DIFFERENT CITIES ACROSS TEXAS. IT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, I'M REQUESTING AND IT WILL BE, HAVE TO BE REPLACED, UM, BASED ON CERTAIN AREAS AND ALSO THE ADD-ON TO THE, TO THE ROOF BECAUSE OF THE ADDITION. OKAY. STANDING SEA METAL ROOFS ARE DESIGNED TO LAST DECADES. SO IF IT'S NOT LEAKING NOW, THE QUESTION WOULD BE WHY REPLACING IT ON THE PARTS THAT DON'T NEED IT? THE ANTICIPATION OF THE METAL ROOF IS 40 TO 70 YEARS AND RIGHT NOW WITH NO RECORD OF INDICATION THAT IT HAS BEEN REPLACED, IT'S CURRENTLY AT 92 YEARS. SO IT'S WELL OVERDUE AS FAR AS, UM, LOOKING AT THAT WITH NO RECORD. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE PERSPECTIVE THAT WE ARE HAVING TO ENSURE THAT WE REVITALIZE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT PUTTING THE BURDEN ON THE OWNERS THAT DO MOVE IN THERE. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME FOR LETTING ME PRESENT. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. YES, SIR. UM, I, I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOUR OBSERVATION ABOUT THE, UH, THE TOWER LIKE ELEMENT OF THE OFFICE, WHETHER IT COULD BE, UH, HAVE THE PLATE HEIGHT LOWERED ON THAT WOULD MAKE IT FEEL MORE NESTLED INTO THE MASS OF THE, THE STRUCTURE. I APPRECIATE THAT THE SITE IS ELEVATED FROM THE STREET CONSIDERABLY AND THAT, UH, STAFF HAS OBSERVED THIS. UH, ADDITION'S GONNA BE MINIMALLY VISIBLE IF VISIBLE AT ALL FROM THE STREET, BUT I STILL THINK IT WILL BE A BETTER INTEGRATION IF THAT, UM, PLATE HEIGHT IS REDUCED. NOW THAT DOESN'T LIMIT WHAT COULD HAPPEN FOR THE CEILING IN THAT SPACE. SO YOU COULD STILL GAIN SOME HEIGHT UNDERNEATH THE, UH, THE GABLE ROOF. SO I, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND WITH A FURTHER STIPULATION THAT THE ADDITION, UH, SECOND STORY ADDITION, HAVE A PLATE HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET. YOU HAVE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I JUST WANNA CLARIFICATION, ARE YOU APPROVING ALL THREE ITEMS, MR. THERE'S ALSO ITEM TWO AND THREE. UM, NO, I'M NOT APPROVING, SORRY, I'M NOT APPROVING ITEMS TWO AND THREE. I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND IN YOUR DISCUSSION. I, I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FISH. AYE. FIBS NA VELAZQUEZ. AYE. CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP. AYE. WHAT SIR? AYE. . AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ITEM [32. Address/Description: Dawson at N Olive HDRC Case No.: 2021-135 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Raul Ruiz/OliveDawson LLC Request: Site plan approval of three new residential structures City Council Dist.: 2] 32. EDWARD, DO YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE? I DO. CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YES. YES. UH, BEFORE YOU START THIS ONE, EDWARD, UH, AFTER THIS ONE WE'RE GONNA TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 32 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 35, UH, DAWSON AT NORTH ALLO. THESE ARE THREE INDIVIDUAL LOTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON ADDRESS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE ONE STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE VACANT LOT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DAWSON IN NORTH OLIVE LOCATED WITHIN THE DITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, THESE LOTS ARE UNADDRESSED. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. BASED ON FINDINGS, A THROUGH J STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PRIOR TO, UH, RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT REORIENT THE STRUCTURE ON THE NORTHERNMOST LIGHT TO FEATURE AN ORIENTATION TOWARD DAWSON STREET AND PROPOSE A SETBACK ON DAWSON STREET THAT IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THOSE FOUND HISTORICALLY ON THE BLOCK. AS NOTED IN FINDINGS E N F TWO, THE APPLICANT CONFIRMED THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING SPACING IS COMPARABLE TO THAT FOUND HISTORICALLY ON THE BLOCK OF, ON THIS BLOCK OF NORTH OLIVE IS NOTED IN FINDING G THREE THAT THE APPLICANT ELIMINATES THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION [02:05:01] WHICH RE, WHICH RESULTS IN FRONT LOADED PARKING IS NOTED IN FINDING. H STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT PLACE DRIVEWAYS TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THAT DRIVEWAY DO NOT EXCEED 10 FEET IN WIDTH. FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE FRONT WALKWAYS FOR EACH STRUCTURE AS NOTED IN FINDING I AND FIVE, THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSED VARYING MASSING AND ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS TO RESULT IN THREE UNIQUE STRUCTURES AS NOTED IN FINDING JAY, I HAVE THE APPLICANT MR. UH, RA REES ON THE LINE NOW. UH, MR. RE, ARE YOU THERE? I AM. THANK YOU. HELLO EVERYBODY. UM, AS NOTED IN, IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, THE ONLY ONE THAT WE'RE REALLY HAVING AN ISSUE WITH IS REORIENTING, UH, THE LOT TO FACE, UH, OLIVE. UM, WE, AFTER LOOKING AT WHAT WE BASICALLY WANT TO PUT HERE AND TO KEEP THE INTEGRITY AND THE HISTORIC DESIGN, UM, REORIENTING THAT LOT IS BASICALLY GONNA GIVE US ABOUT 28 FEET OF DEPTH. UM, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. I, I'VE, I'VE RESEARCHED, I'VE LOOKED AS MUCH AS I CAN AND I REALLY CAN'T FIND ANYTHING, UM, THAT WOULD EVEN BE APPEALING OR THAT WOULD TAKE ME AWAY FROM DOING A SINGLE STORY. I, I DEFINITELY WANT TO KEEP THE HEIGHT AS WAS RECOMMENDED IN THE PREVIOUS REQUEST FROM OTHER INVESTORS AND, AND DEVELOPERS FOR THAT SPECIFIC LOT. UM, SO WE ALSO NOTED THAT, UH, 6 0 1 NORTH OLIVE ACROSS THE STREET, UH, IS ALSO FACING THE OLIVE, UH, DIRECTION VERSUS THE DAWSON DIRECTION. UM, SO WE FELT THAT, YOU KNOW, ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT IT'D BE A LOT, UH, MORE OF AN APPEALING PROJECT FOR US, UH, TO BE FACING OLIVE, IT WOULD ALSO FOLLOW THE FLOW OF, OF THE STREET OLIVE WITH HAVING THAT PROPERTY, UH, FACING THAT SAME DIRECTION. UM, WE HAVE FULL INTENT ON FOLLOWING YOUR GUIDELINES AND KEEPING HISTORIC PRESERVATION. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO ANYTHING, UH, OUTSIDE OF, OF THE NORM, NOTHING TOO MODERN. WE REALLY WANT TO KEEP, UH, THAT STYLE OF HOME. UM, SO REALLY OUR ONLY REQUEST RIGHT NOW IS TO, TO HOPEFULLY KEEP THE LOT AS WE'VE INTENDED TO FACE, UH, THE OLIVE DIRECTION. ALRIGHT. UH, BEFORE WE GO TO QUESTIONS, WE DO HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS. YES, WE DO. UM, THE FIRST IS FROM PATTY ZIONS, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO CONCURS WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT DAWSON NORTH OLIVE. UM, THE NEXT IS FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY, DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, WE SUPPORT STAFF AND ALSO ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO FACE THE NORTHERNMOST HOME TOWARDS SSON STREET AND CONTINUE PURSUE AND CONTINUE TO PURSUE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL BY SUBMITTING MASSING ELEVATION AND PARKING SLASH DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY SLASH PARKING PLANS. UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, UH, AS RELATES TO THE SETBACK ALONG DAWSON. UM, HOW, HOW MUCH IN FRONT OF THE ADJACENT SINGLE STORY EXISTING HOUSE IT'S ILLUSTRATED TO THE LEFT, IS THIS PROPOSED? IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS THE DIMENSIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DAWSON STREET ELEVATION THAT'S PROPOSED AND THE ADJACENT HISTORIC STRUCTURE? UH, UM, OKAY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN JUST SO I MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND? RIGHT. SO I MIGHT BE TURNED AROUND. UM, IS THAT GONNA BE TO THE WEST THE EXISTING SINGLE YES. FAMILY. THE SINGLE OKAY. TO THE WEST. UM, YOUR, OUR GUIDELINES SUGGESTS THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE, UH, SITTING BEHIND THE FACE OF THE ADJACENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS. AND YOUR PROPOSAL, UM, THE NORTH MOST PROPOSAL HERE, THE ONE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE IS SIGNIFICANTLY CLOSER TO DAWSON STREET THAN THE ADJACENT HISTORIC, UH, BUILDING. SO CORRECT. YOU'RE, I SEE THAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S A 10 FOOT SETBACK THAT YOUR PROPOSED, BUT MY QUESTION IS HOW FAR IN FRONT OF THE ADJACENT BUILDING DOES IT SIT? SO WE'RE, WE UNDERSTAND THAT, I GUESS THE, THE SETBACKS ARE, UH, TYPICALLY WHAT ABOUT 20 FEET ON THAT SIDE? SO WHATEVER THE SETBACK IS, WHEREVER THAT THAT PROPERTY, UH, NEXT TO US THAT'S ON, ON DAWSON, WE CAN MOVE THAT PROPERTY BACK TO, TO MATCH THE SETBACK. THAT WON'T BE A PROBLEM. MY PROBLEM IS, IS IF I TURNED THE LOT AROUND AND I I JUST REALLY HAVE NO, NO DEBT, [02:10:02] HOW, HOW WOULD YOU ACCOMMODATE SHIFTING THAT STRUCTURE, UH, SOUTH OR DOWN ON THIS DRAWING 10 FEET? IS IT DOUBLES THE SET? WELL, I WOULD JUST MOVE, I WOULD JUST MOVE EVERYTHING DOWN AND JUST CUT. 'CAUSE I THINK AT, FOR THE MOMENT RIGHT NOW, WE, WE, THERE THERE IS SOME SPACE WHERE WE CAN EVEN MAKE THE STRUCTURES A LITTLE BIT THINNER. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE THAT WIDE. UM, SO THERE IS DEFINITELY ROOM TO CUT THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ALL, UM, YOU KNOW, EVEN WITH THE, THE CURRENT HISTORIC STRUCTURES THAT ARE NEXT TO US. OKAY. AND WHEN, WHEN IT COMES TO THE COMMENT ABOUT THE POSITION OF THE DRIVEWAY, WHAT STAFF IS SAYING IS THE DRIVEWAY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SLIP ALONG THE SIDE OF THE STRUCTURES AND NOT RESULT IN WHAT WOULD WE'D DESCRIBE AS FRONT YARD PARKING? SO WHAT, CORRECT. SO I, I THINK, GO AHEAD. I THINK OUR ARCHITECT JUST DESIGNED THIS QUICKLY AS A SITE PLAN AND, AND MADE THAT INTENTION TO, TO LOOK LIKE IT WAS THE DRIVEWAY UP IN THE FRONT. BUT BASICALLY IF YOU LOOK AT ONE OF THE DIAGRAMS OR SOME OF THE PHOTOS WE PRESENTED, UH, ONE OF OUR IDEAS IS TO INCORPORATE THE DRIVEWAY UNDERNEATH THE EXTENSION OF THE HOUSE, UH, TO WHERE WE CAN ESSENTIALLY MAKE IT A SIDE DRIVE. SO MAKING IT A SIDE DRIVE IS DEFINITELY NOT GONNA BE A PROBLEM. UM, WE, UH, WE REALLY DON'T WANT FRONT DRIVES, BUT I THINK THE DESIGN, UH, SHOWS FOR THAT. OKAY. SO ONE OF, I THINK ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT REALLY HAS TO BE NAILED DOWN IN THE DOCUMENTS FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL IS REALLY THE SETBACKS, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING IN THE DRIVEWAY WITS. AND THERE'S THE, WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS, IS POSSIBLE AND ACHIEVABLE ISN'T NECESSARILY REFLECTED HERE. SO I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN, WE CAN GRANT A OR CONSIDER A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TODAY. AND I'M SUPPOSE THE BIGGEST QUESTION YOU HAVE IS, UH, DOES, IS THE COMMISSION, UH, IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF THAT THE NORTH MOST STRUCTURE, UH, FACE DAWSON OR, OR IS AN OLIVE FACING STRUCTURE GOING TO BE APPROPRIATE? AND I GUESS MY POSITION ON THAT IS GIVEN THAT THE, THE PROPERTY ACROSS DAWSON ALSO FACES OLIVE, THAT IF THAT TREATMENT ALONG DAWSON IS DONE APPROPRIATELY, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT FACING D UH, FACING OLIVE AS PROPOSED. BUT I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO HEAR FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. YES, SIR. UM, I CONCUR WITH THE, UH, THE COMMENTS THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER FISH GAVE AND, AND, UM, I THINK PARTICULARLY IF A, THE APPLICANT PURSUES A SCHEME THAT PERMITS, UH, MAYBE A WRAPPING PORCH, UH, FEATURE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR THAT NORTHERN STRUCTURE SO THAT YOU ADDRESS, UH, DAWSON STREET IN SOME FORMAL WAY RATHER THAN GIVING IT KIND OF THE, UH, THE SIDE SHOULDER OF THE HOUSE, SO TO SPEAK. UM, I, I THINK THAT COULD, UM, BEGIN TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. IN MY MIND. I'M RELIEVED TO HEAR THAT YOU HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN YOUR PLANNING TO BE ABLE TO PULL, UH, ALL THE STRUCTURES, UH, SOUTHWARD AND MAYBE BEND THEM UP A BIT. AND DEFINITELY WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TRY TO, UM, HAVE THE DRIVES EXTEND ALL THE WAY BACK THROUGH BECAUSE I, I DON'T THINK WE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPROVE THE FRONT YARD, UH, PARKING AS IT'S ILLUSTRATED IN, IN THE PACKET RIGHT NOW. UM, I'M FEELING THOUGH THAT THOSE ARE SOME PRETTY BIG ITEMS TO, TO BE HANGING OUT THERE AND I'M NOT SURE I FEEL COMFORTABLE, UH, SUPPORTING A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT THIS POINT WITHOUT SOME OF THAT FORMALLY DOCUMENTED AND SUBMITTED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIR, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER BROOM. YES. MAY I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU? UM, AND I, I DO FEEL EITHER THIS HAS TO GO TO A D R C MAYBE JUST TO MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT IS UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I THINK IT'S SOME SIMPLE SOLUTIONS THAT COULD LEAD TO, UH, APPROVAL OR COME BACK WITH SOME REVISED DRAWINGS. I ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT KNOWS THAT THERE'S SOME GUIDELINES AROUND THE DRIVEWAY, AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS CLEAR, BUT THE APPLICANT IS SUBMITTING SOME PICTURES WITH A DRIVEWAY GOING ON THE SIDE OF THE HOMES, BUT LIKE UNDERNEATH A CONSTRUCTION PART, PART OF THE HOME, WE WOULDN'T, UM, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT FOUND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD EITHER AND PROBABLY WILL NOT BE APPROVED. SO MAY WANNA CONSIDER THAT AS WELL WHEN YOU'RE REDESIGNING. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, UM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO, UH, OR MAKE AN APPOINTMENT WITH THE D R C, BUT I THINK, UH, WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED HERE IS PRETTY CLEAR AND I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT'S NECESSARY. SO I WOULD MOVE TO CONTINUE THE CASE TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE HEARING AND INVITE THE APPLICANT, UH, TO SCHEDULE A D R C BE BEFORE THEN. [02:15:01] I'LL SECOND I I IS THIS A CONCEPTUAL? YES, IT'S FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. THANK YOU, SIR. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE FISH. AYE. JAMES? AYE. QUEZ? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE GROUP. AYE THAT SIR? AYE, . AYE. QUESTION CARRIES. SO NOW WE WILL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. OKAY. I HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE WHEN YOU GIVE ME THE GO AHEAD. OKAY. WE'RE LIVE AGAIN. GO AHEAD. WE, WE, YOU HAVE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF. SORRY. YEAH. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. OKAY. OH, ONE SEC, SORRY. ALRIGHT. [33. Address/Description: 1015 NOLAN ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-155 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Spencer Chism/Patriot Roofing Request: Roof replacement with ridge cap and striation City Council Dist.: 2] UM, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 33, CASE NUMBER 20 21, 1 55 AT 10 15 NOLAN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO REPLACE THE SHINGLE ROOF WITH A NEW STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF WITH ONE UH, INCH PENCIL RIB STRIATION, AND VENTED RIDGE CAP STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF CHANGING ROOFING MATERIAL FROM SHINGLE TO METAL BASED ON THE FINDINGS WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE NEW ROOF FULLY ADHERES TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR METAL ROOFS WITHOUT STRIATION OR THE RIDGE CAP. I HAVE, UM, THE ROOFER FOR THE HOMEOWNER ON THE LINE. UH, SPENCER. UH, SPENCER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND EXPLAIN, UH, EXACTLY TO THE POINTS OF THE STRIATION AND THE VENTED RIDGE CAPS? YES. HELLO, MY NAME IS SPENCER CHISHOLM WITH, UH, PATRIOT ROOFING. UM, YES, THE, UH, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH, UH, THE SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE RIGIDITY OF, OF THE HIGH QUALITY METAL WE USE TODAY, IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR LIKE THE DOUBLE MUNCH OR THE CREED RIDGE WITHOUT RESULTING IN A POOR AESTHETICS. AND I BELIEVE THE CUSTOMERS, UH, HAS UPLOADED, UH, PICTURES OF SHOWING OF HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT, UH, THESE COMPANIES HAVE TRIED TO GO WITH THE, UH, THE ROLLED RIDGE OR THE DOUBLE MUNCH, UH, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT. AND I MEAN, IT IS JUST, IT LOOKS, IT LOOKS TERRIBLE. UM, SO YEAH, WE WERE JUST TRYING TO PUSH THROUGH A 24 GAUGE PANEL, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WITH, UH, WITH THE RIDGE GAP, BUT WE'RE NOT PUTTING ANY RIDGE VENTS OR ANYTHING ON TOP OF THE ROOF. IT'S JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, AND THE PENCIL, UM, YOU KNOW, THE STRIATIONS WE'RE WANTING TO USE IS JUST A PENCIL R THEY'RE VERY TINY. UH, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURES. THEY'RE, THEY'RE BARELY NOTICEABLE. SO, UH, UH, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PUSHING FOR AND WHY WE'RE PUSHING FORWARD. AND, UH, I'LL ADD THAT THE, UH, HOMEOWNER DID ADD A PICTURE ON SLIDE 18 OF THE OIL CANNING EFFECT THAT THEY HOPE TO PREVENT WITH DE STRIATION. THANK YOU. I MEAN, IT LOOKS, IT LOOKS TERRIBLE. UH, SPENCER, YOU CAN, UH, MUTE YOUR, YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, WE DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS CASE. UM, YES, PLEASE. OKAY. UM, SO THIS COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL RESORT DISTRICT. WE SUPPORT STAFF WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE RIDGE CAP. WE ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES FOR EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST FOR METAL ROOFS, PAGE 10, ITEM FOUR, USE LOW PROFILE RIDGE CAP WITH NO RIDGE CAP VENT OR IN CAP WHEN A CRIMPED RIDGE SEAM IS NOT USED. AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. THIS HAS NOT BEEN INSTALLED YET, CORRECT? NO, MA'AM. UM, I KIND OF, UM, I'M AGREEING WITH STAFF AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I MEAN, WE SEE THIS ALL THE TIME. WE'VE APPROVED, WE DO HAVE PUBLIC FOR THIS CASE. UM, YES, PLEASE. UM, SO THIS COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY. HEY, WE, I'M OKAY. OKAY. COMMISSIONER GROUP. I'M SORRY IF I DIDN'T GET HURT. UM, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY I CONCUR WITH STAFF AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I MEAN, WE APPROVE THESE ALL THE TIME AND WITH THE GUIDELINES AND I'LL, I MEAN, I'M READY FOR MOTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE, FOR THE CONTRACTOR? [02:20:02] YES, SIR. SIR, SIR, SIR, THERE'S AN IMAGE ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW THAT YOU CAN SEE IT. UM, ARE, ARE YOU SAYING THAT, THAT IT'S NOT ACHIEVABLE OR IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN ACHIEVE THE, YOU KNOW, THE REMOVAL OF THE, THE RIPPLE EFFECT THERE? THERE'S A QUESTION FOR THE CONTRACTOR OR FOR THE ROOFER. CAN, CAN YOU, CAN YOU HEAR ME? I'M SORRY. YES, YES, GO AHEAD. SORRY. YOU WERE MUTED. OKAY. UH, YES, I MEAN, NO, NO, IT IS ACHIEVABLE. I MEAN, UH, OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T, WE DON'T DO TOO MANY, UH, ROOFS LIKE THIS. UH, IT IS THE TIME CONSUMING. IT IS JUST, IT'S SO HARD TO, TO, TO GET IT, TO NOT LOOK LIKE THE, THE IMAGE ON THE PICTURE. UM, BECAUSE YOU'RE TAKING 24 GAUGE BACK IN THE DAY, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE USING, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THINNER METAL, 29 GAUGE, MAYBE 26, I DON'T KNOW. BUT, UH, IT'S, UH, YOU, YOU START FOLDING AND BENDING 24 GAUGE AND IT JUST, IT'S, IT'S SO EASY TO CREATE ALL THIS ADDITIONAL OIL, OIL CANNING. AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO PREVENT WITH, UH, INSTALLING JUST A RIDGE CAT. IS IS THERE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE COST TO, TO TRY TO ACHIEVE IT WITHOUT THAT? DOES IT CHANGE THE COST OR DOES IT JUST CHANGE THE TECHNOLOGY YOU USE? WELL, I MEAN, THE, THE MATERIAL THE SAME COST. UH, IT'S, UH, I MEAN, IT'S JUST TO DO, UH, 24 GAUGE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE WAY CODE WANTS IT. IT'S, UH, IT'S VERY, VERY TIME CONSUMING AND WE JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, I GUESS, I GUESS THERE'S COMPANIES OUT THERE THAT MAYBE DO MORE THAN THEY CAN ACHIEVE IT PRETTY QUICK, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T DO AND MAKE AND MAKE LOOK GOOD. OKAY. QUESTION, QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, UH, WHO, WHO DO I DIRECTED IT TO? TO WE OR TO YOU, CORY, OR EITHER IF IT'S SPECIFIC TO THE APPLICATION THAN TO, WE, WE, WELL, I GUESS IT MIGHT BE MORE SPECIFIC. IT'S STILL THE APPLICATION, BUT I, I'M, I'M INTERESTED IN WHAT IS, UH, STAFF'S OPINION OF THE PICTURE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW THAT SAY THAT, THAT THEY FOLLOW THE GUIDELINE AND THERE, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY STIPULATION AGAINST THE CONDITION, LIKE THE CONDITION THAT'S ON THE SCREEN. RIGHT. IS THERE AN OPINION ABOUT THAT? TH THIS IS AN INSTALLATION THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES. I, I UNDERSTAND THE OIL CANNING THAT'S BEEN POINTED OUT. UM, BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. UM, AND SO THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED A FEW OPTIONS TO HELP KIND OF MITIGATE THAT EFFECT, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION. OKAY. THANK YOU CORY. AND IT'S, IS IT OKAY? CAN I COMMENT? YES, SIR. UH, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THERE'S SO MANY HOUSES, WHICH I BELIEVE THERE'S PICTURES UPLOADED AS WELL AS, I MEAN, IT, IT'S, I I I HARDLY SEE ANY, UH, ANY OF THE NEW METAL ROOFS THAT BEING INSTALLED IN THAT AREA THAT ARE TWO CODE. I MEAN, THE MAJORITY OF THEM DO HAVE A RIDGE CAP, UH, YOU KNOW, HIP AND RIDGE CAPS. SO I MEAN, IT'S A, ON HIS STREET, IT COMES FROM THE STREET ON NOLAN STREET. I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'S WITHIN BLOCKS, THERE'S NEW ROOFS, AND THEY ALL HAVE RIDGE CAPS. OKAY, THANK YOU. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. YES, SIR. I'M IN, UH, IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER, UH, COMMISSIONER BREW. I, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS ACHIEVABLE. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM A, A LONG ESTABLISHED STANDARD BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. SO, UH, I MOVE WITH, UH, FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF RELATIONS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ ME CARPENTER? AYE. RUBE? AYE. BETTS, SIR? AYE. LI ? AYE. WASHINGTON CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK [34. Address/Description: 703 LONE STAR BLVD/111 ROOSEVELT HDRC Case No.: 2021-140 Historic District Name: Mission RIO District: RIO-4 Applicant: Rene Ruiz/Law Office of Rene D. Ruiz Request: Request for review of contributing status City Council Dist.: 5] YOU. ADAM 34. JESS, ARE YOU THERE? OH, I MUTED YOU EARLIER. LET ME, COMMISSIONER FETZER, UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I, UH, NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF OF THIS. THANK YOU, SIR. WE'LL NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER CARPENTER HAS RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THIS CASE. JESS, IF YOU, YOU MIGHT NEED TO HIT YES. ARE WE THERE? CORY, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES. OKAY. UM, ITEM 34 ON THE AGENDA, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 1 47 0 3 LONE STAR BOULEVARD, ALSO KNOWN AS ONE 11 [02:25:01] ROOSEVELT. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF CONTRIBUTING STATUS FROM THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR ONE STRUCTURE AT 7 0 3 LONE STAR BOULEVARD. STAFF SIGNS A STRUCTURE HISTORICALLY ADDRESSED ONE 11 ROOSEVELT AVENUE. INCLUDED ON THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED 7 0 3 LONE STAR BOULEVARD CONTRIBUTES TO THE MISSION HISTORIC DISTRICT AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FIND THE STRUCTURE CONTRIBUTING TO THE MISSION HISTORIC DISTRICT BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH D. AND I HAVE, UH, RENEE LUIS ON THE LINE ON, UH, BEHALF OF THE OWNER. HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, GO AHEAD, MS. HELLO. GO AHEAD, RENEE. OKAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE STRUCTURE AT ONE 11 ROOSEVELT AVENUE BE FOUND NOT CONTRIBUTING STATUS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MAUSOLEUM THAT'S LOCATED ON THAT PROPERTY. UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ORIENT YOU TO THE STRUCTURE IN QUESTION AND WITH A LITTLE HELP, PLEASE, IF SOMEONE WOULD TAKE US TO PAGE THREE, UH, TO HELP THE COMMISSIONERS. UH, WHAT YOU SEE THERE OUTLINED IN RED IS, UH, WHAT IS REFERRED TO, I GUESS, AS PARCEL 7 0 3. UH, YOU WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT, THIS CASE IS ONLY TALKING ABOUT THAT PORTION THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER THERE IN YELLOW. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE WITHIN THE RED BOUNDARY, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 2 0 1 AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 2 0 7. UH, BY THE WAY, MY CLIENT OWNS EVERYTHING IN RED AS WELL AS 2 0 1 AND 2 0 7. IF WE COULD PLEASE GO TO PAGE 16, I CAN GET YOU TO THE SPECIFIC STRUCTURE IN QUESTION. UM, WHAT YOU SEE AT THE, THE FIRST PICTURE AT THE TOP OF PAGE 16, TO BE CLEAR, THE STRUCTURE ON THE LEFT IS 2 0 1 ROOSEVELT AVENUE. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT STRUCTURE. UH, THERE'S BEEN A RECOMMENDATION OF CONTRIBUTING STATUS FOR THAT STRUCTURE, AND WE DO NOT DISAGREE. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ONE 11 ROOSEVELT, UH, AVENUE. ON THE FAR RIGHT, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MAUSOLEUM THAT YOU SEE ON THE PICTURE AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 16. UH, WE AGREE THAT THAT SHOULD HAVE A, A CONTRIBUTORY STATUS AND WILL PRESERVE THE MAUSOLEUM. WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE STRUCTURE TO THE RIGHT, WHICH IS THAT WOODEN FACADE WITH THE PARAPET TOP. UH, AND IF WE CAN, UH, GO, UH, BY THE WAY, THIS, UH, THE STRUCTURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WOODEN STRUCTURE WITH THE PARAPET. UH, AS THE REPORT NOTES ON PAGE ONE, IT WAS BUILT BY HENRY MEYER IN 1928 AS A WORKSHOP TO ACCOMMODATE HIS GROWING MONUMENT AND MAUSOLEUM BUSINESS. IF WE CAN GO TO PAGE 17, THE VERY NEXT PAGE, YOU'LL GET A CLEARER PICTURE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WOODEN FACADE AND EVERYTHING BEHIND IT. AND EVERYTHING BEHIND IT IS CORRUGATED METAL CLAD, UH, SHED TYPE STRUCTURE. UH, AS NOTED ON PAGE ONE OF THE REPORT, MOST OF, OF THE REAR ARE, UH, INCLUDED ADDITIONS THAT WERE MADE OVER TIME AND NOT ORIGINAL. NOW THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE SPECIFIC STRUCTURE AND ISSUE, I WANNA POINT OUT A COUPLE OF FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE REPORT. UH, NOT TO BE NITPICKY, BUT BECAUSE WE THINK THAT THEY ARE GERMANE TO THE QUESTION AT ISSUE AT PAGE ONE, UH, SECTION A UNDER THE HISTORIC CONTEXT SECTION, THE REPORT STATES THAT BEFORE THE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED BY MY CLIENT, ONE 11 ROOSEVELT ROOSEVELT AVENUE WAS OWNED BY THE MEYER FAMILY. THAT'S, THAT'S NOT CORRECT. UH, ONE 11 ROOSEVELT WAS NEVER OWNED BY THE MEYER FAMILY. IT WAS OWNED BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY. AND THE RAILROAD COMPANY LEASED THE PROPERTY TO MEYER, UH, FAMILY SO THAT THEY COULD PUT THEIR WORKSHOP THERE. THE LEASE AGREEMENT, WHICH MY CLIENT HAS INHERITED, UH, EXPRESSLY, PROVIDES THAT ALL IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE TAKEN DOWN AT THE END OF THE LEASE. AND SO THERE ARE PRE-EXISTING PROPERTY RIGHTS AS BETWEEN MY CLIENT AND THE TENANT. UH, INCIDENTALLY, UH, THE NEW OWNERS OF MEYER, UH, BROTHERS INC, HAVE SUBMITTED A COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF OUR POSITION, AND I THINK WE'LL GET TO THAT LATER. THE OTHER FACTUAL INACCURACY, UH, IS AT PAGE ONE AND IT STATES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER THREE. IN FACT, IT'S IN DISTRICT FIVE, COUNCILWOMAN SHIRLEY GONZALEZ'S DISTRICT. AND THE COUNCILMAN WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION RELATIVE TO THE STRUCTURE IN QUESTION, AND SHE MADE A SITE VISIT TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY. AND I CAN CONFIRM AND REPRESENT THAT SHE SUPPORTS A FINDING OF NON-CONTRIBUTING STATUS FOR THE WORKSHOP LOCATED AT ONE 11 ROOSEVELT, IF WE COULD PLEASE NOW GO TO PAGE 12. AS I'M SURE THE COMMISSION KNOWS, FOR CONTRIBUTORY STATUS, THERE MUST BE THREE CRITERIA THAT ARE MET. AND SO IF ONE OF THESE CRITERIA IS FOUND NOT TO BE APPLICABLE, THEN THE BURDEN, UH, HASN'T BEEN MET. AND, UM, WE [02:30:01] BELIEVE OUR REQUEST SHOULD BE, UH, GRANTED. UM, THE FIRST CRI DECIDED ON PAGE 12 IS NUMBER THREE, AND IT TALKS ABOUT IDENTIFICATION OF A PERSON WHO HAS SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. AND, UH, O P'S UH, POSITION IS THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT FOR HENRY MEYER AND HIS SONS, AND THE BUSINESS REMAINED IN OPERATION UNTIL AT LEAST 2018. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE ONE UNDER FINDING A, THEY'RE VERY CLEAR AND THEY SAY THAT HENRY MEYER WAS KNOWN FOR HIS MONUMENT AND MAUSOLEUM WORK, AND HAS ACCREDITED TO HIM SOME OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND SUBSTANTIAL MONUMENTS AND MAUSOLEUMS IN THE STATE. SO HENRY MEYER WAS NOT KNOWN FOR HIS WORKSHOP. HE WAS KNOWN FOR HIS MAUSOLEUM AND MONUMENT WORK. AND WE'VE ALREADY STATED THAT WE'D BE WILLING AND AGREE WITH THE CONTRIBUTORY STATUS FOR THE MAUSOLEUM, BUT NOT FOR THE WORKSHOP. ALSO, AS THE REPORT NOTES AT THE TOP OF PAGE EIGHT, HENRY MEYER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AT 2 0 1 ROOSEVELT FROM THE C***S LUMBER IN 1930. AND THE HOUSE HAD A NUMBER OF RESIDENCE UNTIL 1934 WHEN RUSSELL AND CLIFTON MEYER MOVED IN. THE O H P HAS RECOMMENDED A FINDING OF CONTRIBUTORY STATUS FOR 2 0 1 ROOSEVELT. AND WE AGREE NUMBER, UH, NUMBER SIX, THE SECOND CRITERIA, IT SAYS IT'S, IT SAYS IT'S A HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL AND CULTURAL CHARACTER AS A PARTICULARLY FINE OR UNIQUE EXAMPLE OF UTILITARIAN STRUCTURE. AND THEN IT'S FOLLOWED BY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, BRIDGES, SQUA, GAS STATIONS, TRANSPORTATION, SELTZERS. WHENEVER THERE'S SPECIFIC LANGUAGE LIKE THAT, THE TERM UTILITARIAN STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE SAME TYPE AS THE SPECIFICS, UH, EXAMPLES. AND HERE, UH, THE WORKSHOP DOESN'T FALL WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF THE SPECIFIC TYPES OF STRUCTURES THAT FALL UNDER THIS CRITERIA BRIDGES THE SQUA. UM, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, IT WAS NOT A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE. IT, IT WAS AN, IT WAS A WORKSHOP, AN INDUSTRIAL WORKSHOP. AND, UM, SO, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT APPLIES EITHER. AND THEN THE THIRD CRITERIA, UH, THAT HAS BEEN ASSERTED IS THAT IT'S A DISTINCTIVE IN CHARACTER, INTEREST OR VALUE STRONGLY EXEMPLIFIES A CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ETHNIC OR HISTORICAL HERITAGE OF SAN ANTONIO. AND WHAT, UH, THE O H P IS SAYING IS THAT AS A MULTI-GENERATIONAL BUSINESS LOCATED AT THE SITE FOR OVER 85 YEARS, AND FOR ITS CONTRIBUTION TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE GROWTH OF SAN ANTONIO AND TO THE EXPANSION OF INDUSTRY INTO THE SOUTH SIDE, SOUTH SAN ANTONIO, WHERE THERE WAS ADJACENCIES TO THE SAN ANTONIO RIVER AND TO THE RAIL LINES HERE, I WANNA MAKE A POLICY ARGUMENT. CRITERIA NUMBER 11 REFERS TO THE ECONOMIC HERITAGE OF SAN ANTONIO AND STAFF SPECIFICALLY POINTS TO EXPANSION OF INDUSTRY INTO SOUTH SAN ANTONIO. STATING IN THE REPORT AT PAGE NINE THAT THE RELOCATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF THESE BUSINESSES ALONG THE ROOSEVELT CORRIDOR WAS IN LINE WITH TRENDS FOUND HISTORICALLY IN SOUTH SAN ANTONIO. BUT I THINK AT A OVERARCHING AND MORE DOMINANT HISTORICAL TREND OF ECONOMIC HERITAGE OF SOUTH SAN ANTONIO IS ONE OF MARGINALIZATION AND NEGLECT. AND THE PRESERVATION OF THIS TIN SHACK ON A DEAD END ROAD BY THE RAILROAD TRACKS, SEEMS TO ME TO BE A GOOD WAY TO PERPETUATE THAT HISTORY AND PREVENT A BADLY NEEDED REVITALIZATION OF THIS AREA, WHICH IS JUST ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF SOUTHTOWN LA VACA AND CLOSE TO LONE STAR, UH, WHICH WE HOPE WILL BE, UM, UH, COME TO FRUITION SOON. AND SO WHAT MY CLIENT WANTS TO DO IS REVITALIZE THIS OVERALL PROPERTY, NOT JUST ONE 11 ROOSEVELT, BUT ALL OF THAT, WHAT I SHOWED YOU FROM THE BEGINNING AND BUILD ON TRENDS THAT ARE FOUND TODAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE WHILE PRESERVING THE MAUSOLEUM AND 2 0 1 ROOSEVELT. MY CLIENT HAS A RECLAMATION PLAN. HE WANTS TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND AND HAS GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND IN SOME OF THESE STRUCTURES, BUT HE HAS A RECLAMATION PLAN AND WILL AGREE TO REPURPOSE ALL SALVAGEABLE MATERIAL FROM THE WORKSHOP FOR USE ON THE OVERALL PROPERTY. AND THIS WOULD INCLUDE WOOD BEAMS AND THE TIN. UH, FINALLY, I THINK WE'LL GET TO THIS IN A SECOND, BUT WE DO HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT, AS I NOTED EARLIER, IN PARTICULAR, ONE FROM THE OLIVAS WHO ARE NOW THE CURRENT OWNERS OF MOTHER MEYER BROTHERS INC. AS WELL AS FROM FOUR NEIGHBORS WITHIN 200 YARDS. AND THAT IS OUR PRESENTATION. WE WOULD REQUEST A RECOMMENDATION OF NON-CONTRIBUTORY STATUS. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, CITIZEN COMMENTS. UM, YES. THE FIRST IS FROM PATTY ZIONS, CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO, CONCURS WITH O H P STAFF'S FINDINGS OF THE STRUCTURE AT ONE 11 ROOSEVELT, THE CONTRIBUTING BUILDING TO THE MISSION HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT ALSO MEANS AT LEAST THREE CRITERIA REQUIRED FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION. UM, THE REMAINING COMMENTS, UM, IT'S SORT OF A COMBINED, UH, STATEMENT, UM, SUBMITTED BY CANDID ROGERS TWO 15 GROVETON STREET, DEREK DILLARD, 2 0 2 [02:35:01] ROOSEVELT AVENUE, LELAND STONE, THREE 11 ROOSEVELT AVENUE, UH, DIANA KALES TWO 10 GROVETON. UM, AND THEN AS WELL AS, ACTUALLY THAT ONE'S SEPARATE. SO THOSE FOUR, UM, SUBMITTED THE STATEMENT THAT THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF A FINDING OF NON-CONTRIBUTING STATUS FOR THE STRUCTURE AT ONE 11 ROOSEVELT AND FOR DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURE. UM, AND THEN DEREK MORALES ON BEHALF OF AMY AND JONATHAN OLIVAREZ, UM, ONE 10 EAST HOUSTON STREET, UM, SUBMIT THAT THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF NON-CONTRIBUTORY STATUS FOR THE STRUCTURE AT ONE 11 ROOSEVELT AVENUE. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. YES, MA'AM. SO I GUESS THERE WAS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONFUSION FROM STAFF OR BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND STAFF, BECAUSE I FEEL, I MEAN, I APPLAUD, UH, THE APPLICANT FOR A GREAT PRESENTATION. UM, I THINK IT CLARIFIED A LOT, UM, SOME ON THE LANDMARK CRITERIA FOR ONE 11. I MEAN, STAFF DOES REFER TO THE MUS LIMB, WHICH RIGHT NOW, JUST TO, YOU KNOW, CLARIFY THAT IS NOT, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT THAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, I WOULD SUPPORT, UM, THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION TODAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT STAFF ISN'T ABLE TO CLARIFY THAT WITH THEIR COMMENTS OR LIKE MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICATION IS CORRECTED. THIS IS LESS ABOUT THE DESIGNATION CRITERIA THAT ARE REFERENCED IN THE HISTORIC ASSESSMENT. I MEAN, THAT WAS REALLY DONE PRIOR TO THIS REQUEST. UM, SO THIS IS REALLY ABOUT WHETHER WHAT IS PROPOSED, UM, FOR REMOVAL OF NOT REMOVAL, SORRY, IT IS GOING TO REMAIN DESIGNATED, BUT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S CONSIDERED A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO INFORM THE DEMOLITION PROCESS MOVING FORWARD, UM, IF THE APPLICANT DOES WANT TO DO DEMOLITION. UM, AND SO THE U D C GIVES STAFF THE ABILITY TO REFER THAT QUESTION TO THE COMMISSION. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS PROPERTY. MR. COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ? YES, SIR. MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANNA COMMENT THAT I CAN APPRECIATE THAT THE, UH, PRESENTATION. I KNOW THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION IN THE AREA BETWEEN DISTRICT THREE AND DISTRICT FIVE. IT'S A, IT'S A BIT OF AN EXPERIENCE OF BOTH DISTRICTS, I THINK HEAVILY, UH, THE, UH, LANDSCAPE EXPERIENCE OR THE V VEHICULAR EXPERIENCES, THE DISTRICT EXPERIENCE. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF WORK GOING ON IN THE AREA. UH, IT, IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE A, UH, UH, THIS IS A COLLAPSING ENVIRONMENT FOR, FOR, FOR SO SO LONG. AND SO MUCH OF IT IS STILL IN THAT, IN THAT SITUATION THAT I CAN REALLY APPRECIATE THE, THE COMMENTS, UH, ABOUT THE NEEDED DEVELOPMENT, UH, IN, IN THE ENVIRONMENT. BUT ALSO THEY'RE KIND OF REAL SENSITIVE TO, TO THE, TO THE COMMENT ABOUT THE, THE, UH, THE LEASING AGREEMENT AND THE TRAIN, UM, UH, THE TRACK, THE TRACK LOCATIONS, THOSE THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA KNOW THAT THERE'S ALREADY BEEN QUITE A BIT OF, UM, UM, KIND OF LIKE PUBLIC WORK STYLE ALTERATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENT. THERE'S NOT THE SAME, YOU, YOU CAN'T DRIVE ANYMORE. YOU HIT A, A BARRIER THERE. SO THE EXPERIENCE IS VERY DIFFERENT AS YOU TURN ON ON TON STREET. THERE'S A SERIES OF VERY MODERN, UH, BUILDINGS ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL YOU GET TO THE, TO THE FREE TAIL, UH, BREWERY. SO, UM, WE APPLAUD, UH, JUST, JUST AS A COMMISSIONER FROM DISTRICT RE APPLAUD YOUR, YOUR EFFORTS TO REVITALIZE THIS AREA. UM, IT COULDN'T COME AT A BETTER TIME. UM, AND, UM, I, I WOULD BE SUPPORTING COMMISSIONER UH, GROOVE'S COMMENTS AS WELL. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. YES. UM, I'M FAMILIAR, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE STRUCTURE. IT'S KIND OF IN GUESS IN MY NECK OF THE WOODS, AND I THINK THE ELEVATIONS, THE IMAGES OF THE ELEVATION FROM THE SUGGESTS THAT THERE'S PROBABLY MORE THERE THAN THAT'S THERE. I UNDERSTAND IT'S QUITE COBBLED TOGETHER, QUITE DETERIORATED AND BEYOND THAT KIND OF IMAGE OF THE, OF THE FACADE THERE, THERE REALLY ISN'T MUCH, UH, THAT REMAINS. AND, AND WE'VE REVIEWED, UH, DEMOLITION CASES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND OF LANDMARKS. UM, AND I THINK KIND OF THIS FALLS IN THAT CATEGORY OF THOSE THAT WE MAKE A DET, WE TEND TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE. SO, UH, I WOULD MOVE TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT, UH, AND SUPPORT A FINDING OF NON-CONTRIBUTING STATUS. ASK US A, A SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I GUESS MY THOUGHTS ON THIS IS THAT, YES, THE BUILDING HAS BEEN ADDED ONTO OVER TIME, BUT IT DOES SPEAK TO A TIME WHEN THIS PART OF TOWN, OR THIS AT LEAST THIS BLOCK, UH, HAD A, UH, GOING CONCERN WITH THE MONUMENT COMPANY AND THAT THIS STRUCTURE, [02:40:02] ACTUALLY, IF IT'S THE WORKSHOP, THEN, UM, MANY OF THE MONUMENTS THAT MR. MEYER IS KNOWN, KNOWN FOR WERE CREATED HERE IN THIS BUILDING. SO, UM, I'M GOING TO, UM, NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION, BUT WE DO HAVE A MOTION FOR FINDING OF NON-CONTRIBUTING STATUS. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FISH. AYE. GIBBS. NAYYY VELASQUEZ. AYE. CARPENTER OH, IS RECUSED RUB? AYE. FETZER. NAYYY LA AYE. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [35. Address/Description: 118 LOTUS ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-149 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: George Torres/Architexas Request: Construction of a 1-story rear addition City Council Dist.: 1] ITEM 35. RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? YES. OKAY, GO AHEAD. ITEM NUMBER 35 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 1 49 1 18 LOTUS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE CONSTRUCT, A 619 SQUARE FOOT REAR ADDITION, TWO, RECONSTRUCT THE FRONT PORCH, REINSTALL NEW ALUMINUM CLOUD WOOD WINDOWS, AND FOUR, PERFORM FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS. ITEM ONE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE STORY REAR EDITION BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH I WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS, UM, THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF LOT COVERAGE TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATES AN OFFSET TO DISTINGUISH THE ADDITION FROM THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. AND THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL WINDOW SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL THAT MEETS STAFF STANDARD STIPULATIONS. ITEM TWO, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PORCH RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON FINDING J WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE FRONT PORCH POST TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ITEM THREE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF WINDOW REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING K WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE APPLICANT REPAIRS AND REUSES THE TWO EXISTING WINDOWS ON THE STRUCTURE. AND TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL WINDOW SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL, UH, WITH STAFF STANDARD WINDOW STIPULATIONS. ITEM FOUR, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS BASED ON FINDING L. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THE EXISTING FENESTRATION PATTERN ON THE FRONT ELEVATION. IF THE H D R C IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL WINDOW AND DOOR SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL THAT MEETS STAFF STANDARD WINDOW STIPULATIONS AND THE APPLICANT NICK MELDY IS ON THE LINE. UM, NICK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR REQUEST? YES. THANK YOU, RACHEL. UM, SO, UH, THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN THROUGH QUITE A JOURNEY OVER THE PAST, UH, YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF. UM, THE PREVIOUS, UH, IT IS UNDER NEW OWNERSHIP, UM, FROM, UH, UH, UH, WHEN, WHEN THE PREVIOUS OWNER, UH, BEGAN WITH THE PROJECT, UM, UH, MYSELF AS, AS PART OF THE, UH, LAVACCA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS, UM, OUR, UM, ASSOCIATION, UH, UH, UH, BOARD MEMBERS, UM, UH, WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE, UH, PREVIOUS OWNER WAS, WAS DOING TO THE HOUSE AND THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE TAKING PLACE. AND THEN CAME UP A, UM, THEN HE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION, WHICH WAS WHEN WE REALLY KICKED IN GEAR AND, UM, AND, UH, UH, SUPPORTED, UH, THE, UH, LANDMARK STATUS, UM, UH, WHICH WAS, UM, IMPLEMENTED ON THIS HOUSE. AND THEN THE OWNER DECIDED TO, UH, GIVE UP ON HIS, UH, PROJECT. AND, UH, THE NEXT OWNER, OWNER CAME ALONG AND, UM, UNDERSTANDS, UM, UH, BETTER HOW TO, UH, YOU KNOW, GO, GO ABOUT, UM, UH, UH, REHABILITATING AND, UH, RESTORING HOUSES LIKE THIS. AND SO, UM, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. UM, WE DO, UH, AGREE WITH, UM, MOST OF STAFF'S, UM, STIPULATIONS. UM, I THINK, UH, THE ONE THAT, UH, OR THE FEW THAT WE'D LIKE TO, UM, GET SOME, UH, FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION TODAY ON, UM, IS, UM, THE, UH, I RECOMMENDATION NUMBER. UM, I GUESS IT'S, UH, UNDER ITEM ONE, RECOMMENDATION TWO, THE OFFSET, UH, TO DISTINGUISH THE ADDITION FROM THE ORIGINAL WOOD STRUCTURE. WE ARE SHOWING A PIECE OF TRIM ALONG THAT FACADE, UM, AND, UH, UH, TO DISTINGUISH A, A AS A, UM, LINE OF DEMARCATION ESSENTIALLY FROM WHERE THE, UM, EXISTING STRUCTURE, UH, HISTORIC STRUCTURE STOPS AND WHERE THE NEW ONE PICKS UP. [02:45:01] UM, THAT HAS BEEN, UM, A, UH, AN ACCEPTABLE, UH, METHOD IN THE PAST. UM, ON, ON, ON PAST PROJECTS I'VE WORKED ON. UM, AND THEN, UH, WE WILL CERTAINLY, UM, SUBMIT FINAL, UH, APPROVAL FOR, FOR WINDOWS, UM, IN, UM, ALL OF THOSE CASES. AND THEN, UM, AND WE'LL OF COURSE SUBMIT, UH, WE'RE, UH, WE'RE PROPOSING NEW SPINDLE COLUMNS FOR THE FRONT PORCH, UM, TO, UH, UH, UH, UH, UH, TO, TO COORDINATE, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT TO BE SENSITIVE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IN THE PERIOD. UM, AND, UH, LET'S SEE, UH, WE, WE DO PLAN TO REPAIR. UM, SO, SO ALL OF THE, UH, UNDER THE PREVIOUS OWNER, ALMOST ALL OF THE WINDOWS WERE TAKEN OUT EXCEPT FOR TWO, UM, THAT ARE, UH, IN, UH, RELATIVELY GOOD CONDITION, UH, ON THE FRONT PORCH, UH, BOTH ON THE FRONT FACING FACADE AND THE DRIVEWAY FACADE. UM, OUR PROPOSAL, UM, THOUGH THAT, THAT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND, UM, IS, IS TO, UH, IS TO MOVE THE LOCATION OF THE FRONT DOOR, UM, AND SWAP IT ESSENTIALLY WITH THE, UH, FRONT FACING, UH, WINDOW, UH, REUSE THAT WINDOW WHERE THE DOOR WAS AND MOVE THAT FRONT DOOR TO WHERE THAT WINDOW IS. UM, THAT ESSENTIALLY WORKS, UM, FAR BETTER FOR THE FLOOR PLAN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, UM, AND, UH, ALLOWS US TO, UM, UH, PUT A, A BEDROOM IN THAT FRONT WINDOW IN THAT FRONT ROOM WHERE THE BAY WINDOW IS. UH, SO THAT WE'RE, UH, SO THAT WE'RE PROVIDING A THREE BED, UH, UH, TWO BATH, UH, CONFIGURATION THAT'S, UH, GENERALLY MORE CONDUCIVE FOR, FOR BRINGING, UH, FAMILIES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE WITH, UH, WITH OUR PROPOSAL TODAY. UH, WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK. THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, CITIZEN COMMENTS? WE DO NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. YES. UH, I WANNA THANK THE APPLICANT FOR TAKING ON THIS PROJECT AND KIND OF GETTING IT BACK ON TRACK. UM, IN, AS IT RELATES TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS THE, THE SWITCHING OF THE DOOR IN THE WINDOW ON THE PORCH, I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE, THE WALL BENEATH THAT WINDOW BENEATH THE SEAL HAS BEEN ALTERED OR HAD BEEN FILLED IN OVER TIME. AND THERE MIGHT BE EVIDENCE THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A DOOR THERE AT ONE POINT IN TIME. WELL, AT ONE POINT IN TIME, WELL PARTICULARLY SYMPATHETIC TO THE, THE NEEDS OF THE FLOOR PLAN ARRANGEMENT. UM, I THINK THAT THAT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST. I WOULD SUPPORT IT AND I WOULD ALSO SUPPORT THE TRIM, THE TRIM PIECES, REPRESENTING THE TRANSITION FROM OLD TO NEW. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS ONE, UH, WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS, AND I'D NOTE THAT ITEM TWO, UH, STIPULATION TWO, ITEM ONE, BE ALTERED TO READ, UH, TRIM, DISTINGUISH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND THE ADDITION. UM, APPROVAL OF ITEMS, ITEMS TWO AND THREE WITH STAFF STIPULATION AND APPROVAL OF ITEM FOUR WITH STAFF STIPULATION. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I SECOND THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION, UM, FOR CLARIFICATION? ITEM FOUR, STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE THE DOOR LOCATION. UM, SO ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT? I'M RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR ITEMS WITH, WITH THE WINDOW STIPULATION. GOT IT. WITH THE WINDOW STIPULATION? YES. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FISH. AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE GROUP? AYE BET, SIR. AYE. . AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ADAM 36. [36. Address/Description: 327 WICKES HDRC Case No.: 2021-079 Historic District Name: King William Applicant: Matthew Carson/Pella South Texas, LLC Request: Window replacement City Council Dist.: 1] WE, ARE YOU THERE? YES. FOR ITEM 36, UH, THEY'RE REQUESTING WINDOW REPLACEMENT. UH, HOWEVER THE PHONE NUMBER PROVIDED IS, UH, LEADING ME STRAIGHT TO VOICEMAIL COMMISSIONERS. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PROCEED WITH READING THE CASE OR IS THERE A MOTION TO POSTPONE? MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER [02:50:01] FISH IN, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE CAN'T GET THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE, I WOULD MOVE TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE HEARING. I HAVE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? IS THIS COMMISSIONER SECOND? MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? YES. AYE. AYE. EBBS. AYE. QUEZ? AYE. UH, CARPENTER? AYE. AYE. AYE. FETZER. AYE. LI AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. YEAH, ADAM 37. RACHEL, HAVE YOU HAD TIME TO CONTACT THE APPLICANT? RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE? I THINK SHE'S CALLING THE APPLICANT RIGHT NOW. OKAY, THANK YOU. THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE REVIEWING THE REQUEST. CORY, I'M ON THE LINE WITH THE APPLICANT FOR TWO 41ST. OKAY, GO AHEAD. GREAT. ITEM NUMBER 37 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 1 22 2 40. FIRST, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. GATE STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS, A THROUGH B STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE DRIVEWAY GATE IS INSTALLED AT A LOCATION BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE WALL AND THE APPLICANT AND OWNER PAULINE MORENOS ON THE LINE. PAULINE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSIONERS AND EXPLAIN YOUR REQUEST? UH, YES. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME YOUR TIME TODAY. UM, THE REASON, UM, AND, AND I DID THINK ABOUT PUTTING THE GATE, UH, WHERE YOU SUGGESTED, BUT I DIDN'T WANNA LEAVE THAT AREA OPEN BECAUSE THERE'S A BEDROOM THERE WITH A, WITH A DOOR ACCESS, UM, ACCESS TO THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE. AND MY GRANDCHILDREN USUALLY SLEEP THERE WHEN THEY COME OVER. SO I, I DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA JUST FOR SAFETY. AND, UM, SO THE, THE GATE, UH, WE REALLY WANTED IT TO BE IN THE AREA WHERE THE PRESENT GATE IS. UM, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE GATE WOULD OPEN INWARD INSIDE UNDERNEATH A CARPORT, THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH ROOM FOR A VEHICLE TO GO THROUGH WITHOUT POSSIBLY HITTING SOMETHING. AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF, UM, THAT DOOR, UH, THAT IS RIGHT IN THAT AREA. AND THERE'S STAIRS LEADING UP TO THAT SIDE, UM, SIDE DOOR THAT, UM, ACCESS TO THE HOUSE. SO, UM, SO IT, IT, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE TOO, UM, TOO NARROW FOR A VEHICLE SUCH AS THE PICKUPS THAT, UH, AND MY, MY BUICK THAT I HAVE. SO, UM, I, I WASN'T SURE IF, IF, UM, HOW Y'ALL FELT ABOUT RECONSIDERING THE ORIGINAL, UH, PLAN TO HAVE THE, UM, THE ACCENTUATED, UH, VISIBLE ON THE OUTSIDE. MAYBE POSSIBLY THERE'S SOME WAY THAT WE CAN CONCEAL THEM. UM, THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I, THAT, THAT I COULD THINK OF. UH, OTHER THAN THAT I WOULD JUST HAVE TO KEEP THE, THE ROD IRON DATE MANUAL WHERE WE, YOU KNOW, WE, UH, OPEN IT MANUALLY TO HAVE ACCESS, UH, FROM THE FRONT, UH, FROM THE FRONT END OF THE HOUSE. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, CITIZEN COMMENTS? WE DO NOT. OKAY. UM, I DO HAVE ONE, UH, QUESTION. MS. MORENO. YES. IS IT, IS IT POSSIBLE, I'M LOOKING AT THE PHOTOS AND THERE IS A SMALL SECTION OF WALL BETWEEN THE FRONT WALL AND YOUR, THAT BEDROOM WINDOW THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO. IS IT POSSIBLE YES. UHHUH TO SET THE FENCE BETWEEN THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE AND THE BEDROOM WINDOW SO THAT THE GATE IS BEHIND, SOMEWHAT BEHIND THE FACE OF THAT, UH, FREESTANDING COLUMN. OH. UM, SO, [02:55:01] SO YOU ARE, ARE YOU STILL SPEAKING UNDERNEATH THE CARPORT OR MORE TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? NO, THE, THE, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THE GATE WOULD ACTUALLY GO FURTHER UNDERNEATH THE CARPORT, BUT IT WOULD BE BETWEEN THAT BEDROOM WINDOW AND THE, THE CORNER WHERE THE DOWNSPOUT IS. SO IT'S NOT FLUSH WITH THE FACE OF THE HOUSE. IT'S SET BACK SLIGHTLY. YEAH. BEHIND THE . YEAH. IT, IT WOULD STILL BE TOO, TOO NARROW TO GO THROUGH BECAUSE THE STAIRS, THEY COME OUT ABOUT HOW MANY TO ABOUT THREE FEET. THEY COME OUT THREE FEET FROM, UH, FROM WHERE THAT SIDE DOOR IS. SO, AND, AND THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM. IT WOULDN'T, AND, AND SO THE DOOR WOULD ACTUALLY NOT BE ABLE TO OPEN UP ALL THE WAY TO, TO MAKE MORE ROOM. IT WOULD BE BLOCKED BY THE, THE CEMENT STAIRS. SO THAT, THAT IS THE REASON WHY. UM, AND, AND I SPOKE WITH, UH, THE GENTLEMAN, UM, GOSH, I CANNOT REMEMBER WHAT HIS, UH, BUS MR. BUSTAMANTE ABOUT THAT, BUT HE SAID THAT THAT WAS NOT FEASIBLE. WE, WE TRIED EVERY WEEK WHICH WAY, BECAUSE HE, HE KNEW THAT Y'ALL, YOU, UH, MIGHT NOT APPROVE OF THE GATE. THIS IS, I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, IS THERE A REASON WHY THIS CAN'T, THIS GATE CANNOT OPEN OUTWARD? UH, WELL THAT IS, THAT IS HOW WE WERE GONNA DO IT. IS, UH, OPEN THE DOOR OUTWARD. SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING GO BACK TO 12. OH, UH, THE, THERE IS A COLUMN WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU'RE FACING THE HOUSE, YOU DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD WORK? I THINK THAT WOULD WORK IF IT WAS MORE FULL, IT WAS MORE FORWARD FRONT. IF YOU PUT IT AT THE CORNER AND IT JUST HAD IT OPEN OUT, SO IT KIND OF HIT THE, UH, WHERE THE STEPS STAND IN FRONT, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IT WOULD, IT'D BE RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE AND IT WOULD JUST OPEN UP LIKE THAT. I MEAN, YOU WOULDN'T NEVER BE ABLE TO THE ACTUATOR AND STUFF, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO DO IT BY HAND. YEAH. THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THAT, THAT WAS THE PROBLEM. IT, IT'S, IT'S, YEAH. ACTUATOR. I'M HUSBAND, JUST MY HUSBAND SPEAKING. SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER, YOU, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THE SOLUTION THAT COMMISSIONER FETZER WAS SUGGESTING, WHICH IS, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME PICTURE. I THINK THIS IS GREAT PICTURE OF WHAT IT, SO YOU'RE KIND OF MAYBE MAKING THE FENCE EVEN A LITTLE BIT WIDER SO YOU DON'T HAVE THAT SIX INCH, IS IT A ONE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT, HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH IT IS RIGHT THERE ON THE LEFT. IT'S ON THE RIGHT SIDE, BUT JUST THAT STEEL FOUR INCH STEEL POST, YOU'RE GONNA PUT IT UP AGAINST THE WALL OF THE HOME, RIGHT BETWEEN THE WINDOW. I THINK THAT'S GREAT. ION AND I HAVE ONE MORE, BUT THE, THE ONLY THING ABOUT IT IS THAT, THAT IT'S, WHEN IT COMES FORWARD, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO FEEL, BECAUSE IT'S NOT, IT IS IT, WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, LEVA DOESN'T, IT'S NOT REALLY LEVEL WITH THE, THE SIDE PORCH. SO WOULDN'T IT LEAVE IT OPEN? NO, YOU JUST CANNOT ATE MORE THAN THE SIDE PORCH. WITH THE SIDE PORCH. OKAY. WELL, UM, EA AND SEE IF IT'LL WORK. LET ME GO LOOK. SO WE, MY HUSBAND'S GONNA GO MEASURE THAT AGAIN, JUST TO MAKE SURE. SO THERE'S THAT, THAT, THAT MIGHT WORK. IT, IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, ON THE SIDE, IT, FOR SOME REASON I WAS THINKING, 'CAUSE I REMEMBER CONSIDERING THAT AND I'M, AND UH, LOOKING AT THE WAY IT APPEARED AND THE WAY, UH, THE GATE WAS GONNA BE SET UP, OPENING OUTWARD, I THINK IT WAS GONNA LEAVE ROOM WHERE ON THE, ON THE FRONT PORCH. IT WASN'T GONNA BE ENCLOSED. THE REASON WE DIDN'T WANNA DO IT OUTWARD IS BECAUSE YOU SEE THE ACTUATORS. YES. NO, NO. THAT, THAT'S ACT WE ARE MR AND AND I WE TALKED ABOUT ALL THAT STUFF. SO THERE, THERE WAS A REASON FOR IT. I'M SORRY. HE, HE'S GONNA GO, UH, TAKE A LOOK AND SEE, UM, JUST GO LOOK AT IT AND YOU CAN, YOU CAN, I, YOU, YOU CAN VIEW IT THAT WAY. LOVE. OKAY. HE, HE'S LOOKING, I'M RIGHT BEHIND HIM. I KNOW WE HAD, WE HAD TRIED TO FIGURE OUT EVERY WHICH WAY TO DO IT SO THAT WAY IT WOULD WORK. AND THERE WAS SOME REASON WHY IT WASN'T GONNA WORK. SO THE WAY YOU HAVE IT DESIGNED, THE ACTUATORS ARE IN THE [03:00:01] FRONT AND THE GATES OPEN OUT, OR THEY OPEN IN, UH, THE GATES RIGHT NOW THEY, THEY, UH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE MANUAL GATES ARE, IT'S A WOODEN, THE, THE ONES, THE NEW DESIGN, THE ACTUATORS, THE GATE OPERATORS. IS IT OPEN OUTWARDS? OKAY. SO THIS IS PROPOSING OPENING OUT AND THE OPERATORS ARE ON THE OUTSIDE. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. LIKE THAT? YEAH. UH, HENRY HAD DRAWN IT THAT WAY BECAUSE HE SAID IT WASN'T GONNA WORK. I DON'T REMEMBER WHY HE SAID IT COULDN'T BE ON THE INSIDE. HE DIDN'T THINK IT, IT WAS GONNA WORK ON THE INSIDE. OKAY. PROBABLY WHAT THEY'RE PROBABLY TALKING ABOUT IS YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUATOR AND IF YOU PUT IT ON THE INSIDE, UH, THEN THE COLUMN HAS TO BE ON THE INSIDE. RIGHT? SO OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE GONNA LOSE FOUR INCHES. NOW THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE GONNA LOSE, GAIN FOUR INCHES, INCHES ON THE OTHER SIDE. 'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA MOVE IT TO THE WALL. I THOUGHT YOU HAD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT A STAIRCASE OR A DOOR OR SOMETHING. THERE'S A DOOR. NO, THERE, THERE'S NOT A DOOR ON THAT SIDE OF THE WALL. ON THE HOUSE SIDE. UNDER, UNDER THE CARPORT, UHHUH THERE IS, THERE IS A DOOR. OKAY. THAT, UM, THAT IT HAS ACCESS TO, UH, ONE OF THE BEDROOMS. RIGHT. AND, UH, IN FRONT OF THE DOOR, BECAUSE IT IS A HIGH DOOR. THEY, THERE'S ALREADY, UM, MADE, UH, CEMENT STEPS. YES. THEY'RE ABOUT THREE FEET OUT FOR, UH, FROM WHERE THE, THE DOOR IS. SO IT LIMITS THE GATE GOING INWARD. AND I THINK THAT WAS A PART OF IT. WELL, I, YOU CAN'T SWING INSIDE, UH, MI MR. CHAIR. I THINK THAT, THAT WHAT THE SITUATION HERE IS, IS THAT IF, IF ALL OF THE IDEAS WERE FLOATED LIKE IN A D R C THAT YOU COULD, YOU COULD COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THERE, HERE IS PROBABLY BECAUSE, 'CAUSE THERE'S A BIT OF INFORMATION THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT CAN'T REMEMBER AND THAT INFORMATION IS PROBABLY IMPORTANT TO WHY THEY DIDN'T DO SOMETHING. SO MAYBE IT SHOULD GO TO A D R C BECAUSE IT'S A SIMPLE ENOUGH ISSUE THAT IF, IF THERE'S ACTUALLY A REASON WHY IT CAN'T HAPPEN, IT'LL COME UP AT A D R C. RIGHT? IS THAT A MOTION? YES SIR. I MOTION THAT IT GOES TO A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROVE. I'LL SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND TO SEND THIS TO A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. NO, THAT FISH AYE GIBBS AYE. VELAZQUEZ AYE GROUP? AYE BET SIR. AYE, I'M SORRY CARPENTER. AYE LA AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. [38. Address/Description: 1023 HAYS ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-134 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Sarah Edwards Request: Porch repair and porch railing installation City Council Dist.: 2] OKAY, ITEM 38, LEE, ARE YOU THERE? YES. ITEM NUMBER 38, CASE NUMBER 20 21 1 34 AT 10 23 HAYES, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FRONT PORCH DECK AND STEPS WITH COMPOSITION DECKING. THE TREX TRANSCEND SERIES BRAND TWO TO INSTALL FRONT PORCH RAILING, AND THREE, REPLACE THE SECONDARY FRONT DOOR WITH A NEW WOOD DOOR TO MATCH THE PRIMARY FRONT DOOR. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEMS ONE, TWO, AND THREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE PORCH FLOOR FEATURES A WOOD OR COMPOSITE DECKING THAT FEATURES A ONE BY THREE TONGUE IN GROOVE PROFILE WITH A SMOOTH OR PAINTED FINISH, WHICH IS MORE APPROPRIATE THAN THE PROPOSED ONE BY FIVE COMPOSITE DECKING WITH FAUX WOOD GRAIN. THE ORIENTATION OF THE DECKING RUNNING PER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FRONT FACADE PLANE SHOULD BE MAINTAINED DURING THE RESTORATION. AND TWO, THE PORCH RAILING FEATURES THE STANDARD, UH, PORCH RAILING DETAILS IN A WOOD CONFIGURATION. THE APPLICANT, UH, SARAH IS ON THE LINE. SARAH HAS AGREED TO THE, UM, FOR THE STIPULATIONS FOR ITEMS TWO AND THREE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE USE OF, UH, TREX AS THE MATERIAL. SARAH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION? YES. HELLO, MY NAME'S SARAH EDWARDS. I LIVE OVER ON HAY STREET. I'VE BEEN IN HILL FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS NOW. UM, THE PORCH HAS FALLEN INTO A STATE OF DISREPAIR AND IT NEEDS TO BE, UH, REPLACED AT THIS POINT. UH, I FEEL LIKE, UH, IN THE REPAIRS I'VE DONE TO THE HOME, I'VE ENDEAVORED TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY AND I WOULD LIKE TO DO SO IN THE REPLACEMENT OF THIS PORCH. UM, WHICH IS WHY I WILL CERTAINLY CONCEDE TO THE RAILING AND TO THE DOOR APPROVAL. UM, THE, THE SITUATION WE HAVE ON THE MATERIAL FOR THE PORCH IS, UH, AT ONE POINT H D R C RECOMMENDED A PRODUCT CALLED ERUS ERUS IS NO LONGER DISTRIBUTED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. I'VE TALKED DIRECTLY TO THE ERUS MANUFACTURER AS WELL AS THREE SEPARATE DISTRIBUTORS WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS. AND THE CLOSEST PLACE TO, [03:05:01] UH, PROCURE ERUS PRODUCT IS IN LOUISIANA. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT GONNA BE AN OPTION FOR ME TO, TO GO TO LOUISIANA TO PROCURE THAT PRODUCT. UM, SO THE NEXT BEST OPTION FOR US FOR OUR COMPOSITE MATERIAL IS GONNA BE THE TREX MATERIAL. IT'S NOT, THEY DO NOT MAKE A ONE BY THREE. UH, THEY MAKE A ONE BY 5.5 INCH. THE REASON I'M REQUESTING THIS IS, UH, AS THE HOMEOWNER AND PRIMARY OCCUPANT, I'M A PARAPLEGIC AND WOOD BECOMES VERY SLICK, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT'S WET. AND THE COMPOSITE MATERIAL IS, HAS A NATURAL ROUGHNESS, LIKE A, ALMOST A COARSENESS TO IT, UH, AS AS IT'S MANUFACTURED AND IT'S SAFER, IT'S LESS SLICK FOR ME. ALSO, THAT DECK IS WEST FACING. UH, SO THE SUN HAS A TENDENCY TO, UM, TO DEGRADATE VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE OF THE EXPOSURE TO THE SUN REQUIRING A HIGHER LEVEL OF PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE AND BOARD REPLACEMENT. IT'S USE A WOOD PRODUCT. I'VE ALSO USED THE SHERMAN WILLIAMS ANTI-SLIP PAINT PRODUCT, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY AN OIL PAINT WITH SAND IN IT. AND IT, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY LESS SLICK. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IN LOOKING AS IN, IN ALL OF OUR RESEARCH FOR THE MATERIAL THAT, THAT TREX IS REALLY OUR ONLY OPTION FOR OUR COMPOSITE MATERIAL. SO I THOUGHT I WOULD COME TO THE COMMISSION AND ASK IF IT COULD POSSIBLY BE APPROVED IN THIS SITUATION. THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS? WE DO NOT. ALRIGHT. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? MR. CHAIR? I, I, I HEAR THE, THIS IS COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ. I HEAR THE, THE, UH, APPLICANT, UM, WITHOUT, UH, USING, YOU KNOW, I I THINK PROBABLY THE LANGUAGE THAT THAT IS, IS NEEDED IS IT IS AN ACCESSIBILITY ISSUE, UH, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT'S AVAILABLE IN THE, YOU KNOW, IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AS FAR AS WITH THE MATERIAL, UM, IT SEEMS THAT THE PROFILE IS, IS, UM, EQUAL. NOW I KNOW THAT THE, THE, THAT THE, THAT THE RHYTHM OF THE LINE AS OPPOSED TO THREE AND A HALF, YOU KNOW, TO FIVE AND A HALF IS, IS SUBSTANTIAL. BUT I THINK THE OVERARCHING, UM, UM, ISSUE IS, IS ONE OF, UM, OF THE, UH, ACCESSIBLE, UH, NEED. UM, IF THERE, IF THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER COMMENTS, I, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THE, UH, APPLICANT'S, UM, REQUEST WITH STIPULATIONS BY STAFF THAT DO NOT, UH, UM, UH, PREVENT, UH, THE, UH, THE USE OF THAT MATERIAL. COMMISSIONER GIBBS, I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I'M SORRY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION. THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE ITEM ONE AS SUBMITTED WITH THE REST OF THE STIPULATIONS. UH, APPROVE THE MATERIAL MATERIAL WITH REST OF STIPULATIONS. AND ITEM TWO WITH STIPULATIONS, CORRECT? YE YES. COMMISSIONER FISH. I, MY MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE APPLICANT WAS OKAY WITH ALL THE OTHER STIPULATIONS. IT WAS JUST THAT ONE, THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT? IT WOULD BE THE ONE AND FIVE TRACK STACKING BUT IT WOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR AS STIPULATED. CORRECT. OKAY. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH? AYE GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. CARPENTER AYE. AYE GROUP? AYE THAT SIR? AYE LI AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK [39. Address/Description: 314 E COURTLAND PLACE HDRC Case No.: 2021-114 Historic District Name: Tobin Hill Applicant: WALKER ABIGAIL S Request: Window replacement City Council Dist.: 1] YOU. ITEM 39 I RACHEL. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 39 H D R C CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 1 14 3 14 EAST COURTLAND, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE 10 EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS WITH VINYL WINDOWS. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH D IF THE H D R C IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE WINDOW REPLACEMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALLS FULLY WOOD WINDOWS THAT MEET STAFF STANDARD WINDOW STIPULATIONS AND SUBMITS UPDATED SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AND AS A CASE COMMENT, THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS THAT ARE AT THE END OF THE CASE FILE AND THE OWNER, ABBY WALKER IS ON THE LINE. ABBY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS YOUR REQUEST WITH THE COMMISSION? YES, I WOULD. UM, I HAVE A VERY ENERGY AND EFFICIENT HOME. UM, THERE'S A, A DRAFT IN THE HOUSE AND IT GETS VERY HOT AS WELL. UM, IT TAKES PROBABLY A GOOD FOUR TO SIX HOURS TO PULL THE, THE HOUSE OFF. UM, I HAVE A, A NEW ROOF, NEW INSULATION, UM, BUT I STILL HAVE THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS. UM, I HAVE HAD SOMEONE LOOK AT THE WINDOWS. [03:10:02] THERE IS SOME ROTTEN WOOD AND THERE'S ALSO LEAD PAINT IN THEM. SO, UM, I WAS POINTED WHEN I REQUESTED, UM, AN ENERGY EFFICIENT SOLUTION. I WAS POINTED TO A WEBSITE, UM, OF THE CITIES AND IT HAD TWO RECOMMENDATIONS. SOLAR FILM OVER THE WINDOWS AND ADDING PUTTY TO THE SEAMS. UM, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, THAT WAS, THEY WOULD STILL BE SINGLE PANED. SO, UM, I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY RANK ON THE ENERGY RATINGS OR, UM, FOR THE STATE. ALSO, UM, WHEN I DID MY RESEARCH, THE REPAIRING THE WINDOWS WAS TWO TO THREE TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE THAN REPLACING THEM. UM, THERE'S ONE WINDOW IN THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE THAT HAS SOME ORNATE DETAIL. I, I NEVER INCLUDED THAT IN THE APPLICATION. UM, MY PLAN WAS ALWAYS TO KEEP THAT WINDOW. UM, ADDITIONALLY I INCLUDED PHOTOS OF THE TOWN HOMES ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME. UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY ALL HAVE VINYL WINDOWS. UM, AND FINALLY THE UH, ADDITION TO THE BACK OF MY HOUSE IS NEW. SO AT THE VERY LEAST, UM, I THINK I SHOULD BE ABLE TO REPLACE THE WINDOWS IN MY BEDROOM BECAUSE IT'S A BRAND NEW STRUCTURE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS. UM, YES, THIS COMES FROM FEDERICA KUSHNER, UM, 4 0 5 EAST MYRTLE. THIS STATEMENT CONCERNS THREE 14 EAST CORTLAND PLACE IN TOBIN HILL AND IS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. ALTHOUGH THE COMMITTEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTACTED BY THE OWNER OF THREE 14 EAST CORTLAND PLACE, WE WOULD LIKE TO COMPLIMENT HER ON HER BEAUTIFUL HOUSE. IT'S VICTORIAN STYLE PLACES IT AS ONE OF THE OLDER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT LOOKS TO HAVE BEEN WELL-MAINTAINED. HOWEVER, WE DO TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE REQUEST FOR WINDOW REPLACEMENT. WE AGREE WITH OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF THAT WINDOW REPLACEMENT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE NECESSARY. WINDOW REPAIR WOULD BE MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE. THERE ARE SEVERAL LOCAL CONTRACTORS WHO CAN REPAIR AND RESET THE WINDOWS AND INSTALL WEATHER STRIPPING IF REQUIRED. WE ASK THAT THE COMMISSION DENY THE REQUEST FOR WINDOW REPLACEMENT. GIVEN THAT THERE ARE AL THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. UH, ONE QUESTION. UM, MS. WALKER, YOU MENTIONED THE REAR ADDITION. IF WE GO TO DRAWING 14, WHICH IS THE PLAN, WOULD THIS INCORPORATE WINDOWS FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN? UM, I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. I'M LOOKING AT THE VIDEO. UM, THERE MAY BE A LAG ON YOUR POSSIBLY SCREEN. LET ME, I STILL, I DON'T KNOW. I STILL HAVE A FRONT, A PICTURE OF THE FRIEND OF THE HOUSE, BUT, UM, OH, THERE WE GO. YES. FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN. SO FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN ARE IN AN ADDITION TO THE HOUSE AND NOT ORIGINAL TO THE HOUSE? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION. WHAT ARE THE MATERIAL, WHAT ARE THE MATERIALS OF WINDOWS FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN? ARE THEY WOOD WINDOWS THAT MATCH THE REST OF THE HOUSE? YES, THEY ARE. THANKS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. UM, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS ADDITION WAS DONE, MAN, BUT IT COULD BE ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE WE ACTUALLY ASKED TO BE REUSED TO THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS ON THE, UH, ADDITION. UM, I I MEAN I FEEL COMPELLED WITH THE NEED OF THE APPLICANT, BUT I DON'T SEE THE WINDOWS BEING BEYOND, UM, I MEAN IT, IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE AN EXTENSIVE REPAIR. I THINK WE'VE SEEN, YOU KNOW, MUCH WORSE WINDOWS. I DO FEEL LIKE WE ARE ALWAYS BEING VERY CONSISTENT. THAT WHEN, WHEN THEY, THEY'RE REPAIRABLE, WE, WE MAINTAIN. UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE MOTION I WOULD SUPPORT. THIS IS COMMISSIONER PARKER? YES, SIR. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. UM, I CONCUR WITH THAT. AND YOU KNOW, I, I THINK, UM, THE APPLICANT SHOULD KNOW THAT THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO IS TO WEATHER STRIP THESE WINDOWS. E EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE DOUBLE PANED WINDOWS, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET THAT MUCH, UH, THERMAL, UH, INSULATION, UH, BENEFIT FROM THAT. AND SO JUST BASED UPON THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND STAFF'S, UH, FINDINGS, UM, I WOULD MOVE FOR DENIAL OF RE REMOVING AND REPLACING THE HISTORIC WINDOWS. BUT, UH, APPROVE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF, UH, WINDOWS FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN, UH, WITH WINDOWS THAT MEET THE [03:15:01] GUIDELINES. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER? GIVE SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SO JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, THIS WOULD NOT BE THE VINYL ONE THAT SHE'S PROPOSING, RIGHT? SO WE WOULD ALSO, UH, NEED TO NOT ONLY THE GUIDELINES BUT THE WINDOW SPECIFICATIONS. CORRECT. THEY NEED TO, UH, MATCH THE WINDOW GUIDELINES AND REPLACEMENT. WE'RE GETTING AWAY FROM SPECIFYING WHAT THE MATERIALS ARE IN GOING WITH JUST THE DIMENSIONS AS, AS THE STAFF HAS LAID OUT IN THE STANDARDS. WELL, OKAY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR REPLACEMENT SAYS FULLY WOOD. AND SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING A WOOD REPLACEMENT 'CAUSE IT'S REPLACING A WOOD WINDOW. E EVEN IN THE, UH, IN THE, IN THE ADDITION, EVEN EVEN IN THE, UH, ADDITION, YOU'D BE RECOMMENDING WOOD. RACHEL, YOU'RE MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE REALLY CONSIDERED PART OF THIS CLEARLY TO BE AN ADDITION. WELL COM COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHAT YOUR MOTION IS IS, UH, UM, SUPPORTING ANY WINDOW THAT MEETS THE GUIDELINE, NOT NECESSARILY THE RECOMMENDATION. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO CORY, I THINK WHAT THE MOTION IS SAYING IS, IS IT'S GIVING, UH, STAFF THE DISCRETION TO CONSIDER IT WITH RESPECT TO, UM, GUIDELINE BUT NOT YOUR RECOMMENDATION. WELL, THE RECOMMENDATION, UH, LET ME, UH, CLARIFY MY POSITION ON THAT STAFF HAS DELINEATED WHAT THOSE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS ARE, UH, DIMENSIONALLY, NOT MATERIALLY. AND I SUPPORT THAT. SO LET ME REPHRASE MY MOTION. UH, DENIAL OF REMOVAL OF HISTORIC, UH, REMOVAL OF REPLACEMENT OF THE HISTORIC WINDOWS, APPROVAL OF, UH, REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN IN THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE WITH WINDOWS THAT MEET THE DIMENSIONAL, UH, REQUIREMENTS AS DELINEATED BY STAFF IN THEIR, IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION. OKAY, GOT IT. DOES COM I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER GIBBS SECOND IN THAT. DO YOU CONCUR? YES. MR. COMMISSIONER. I MEAN, MR. CHAIRMAN I DO CONCUR. YES. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. CHAIRMAN? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I HAVE SOME CONCERN ABOUT FIVE WINDOWS FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF STAFF COULD PUT THOSE WINDOWS ON THE SCREEN SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE THEY'RE NOT HISTORIC WINDOWS. I KNOW IN SOME CASES WHERE WE HAVE ADDITIONS, THE HISTORIC WINDOWS THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ON THOSE FACES ARE SPECIFIED TO BE RELOCATED IN THE ADDITION. SO THIS IS DEFINITELY THE REAR WINDOW HERE. RACHEL, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHICH PHOTOS ARE OF FIVE AND SIX? I BELIEVE LAUREN HAS THAT PULLED UP ON THE SCREEN. OKAY. UH, WELL I SEE AT LEAST ONE. UH, DOES STAFF KNOW IF THOSE ARE THIS KIND OF THE SAME MAKE AND MATERIAL AS THE HISTORIC WINDOWS IN THE HOUSE OR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THEY'RE THEY DO LOOK, THEY DO LOOK LATER. THEY LOOK LIKE THEY WERE PROBABLY MAYBE 1930S OR SO, UM, COMPARED TO THE MORE VICTORIAN STYLE WINDOWS IN THE FRONT. OKAY. IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN WINDOWS FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN FROM THE REST OF THE HOUSE, I'LL SUPPORT THE MOTION. YEAH, WE HAVE A COUPLE ON THE SCREEN THERE. 22 AND 23. THANK YOU. I CAN SEE IT NOW. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FISH. AYE GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. CARPENTER AYE. GROOVE? AYE SIR. AYE AYE. MOTION CARRIES. UM, THANK YOU. ITEM 40 IS A, A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION CASE, UH, THAT STAFF WAS SENDING TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION FOR 1206 WEST RETA. UM, WE DO NOT HAVE THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF NINE COMMISSIONERS THAT MEETS THE FORM REQUIREMENT FOR A DESIGNATION CASE. SO STAFF IS GOING TO PULL THIS ONE FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY AND WE'LL SCHEDULE IT FOR A TIME WHEN WE HAVE ENOUGH COMMISSIONERS. ITEM 41, [41. Address/Description: 1206 W AGARITA AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-084 Applicant: Rodrigo Velazquez de Leon Request: Fenestration modifications, window replacement, exterior maintenance City Council Dist.: 1] WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. YES, I DO. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 41, CASE NUMBER 20 21 0 84 AT 1206 WEST AGARITA, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, MODIFY THE FRONT PORCH FENESTRATION, INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF ONE DOOR AND TWO WINDOWS AND [03:20:01] THE RELOCATION OF ONE DOOR STEPS, RAILING AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW COLUMN. AND TWO, REPLACE ALL EXISTING ALUMINUM AND VINYL WINDOWS WITH NEW VINYL WINDOWS OF THE PLY GEM 1100 SERIES. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF FRONT PORCH FENESTRATION MODIFICATION BASED ON FINDING B. ALL EXISTING WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS SHOULD BE RESTORED IN PLACE UNLESS EXPRESSLY APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION DURING THE INTERIM CONTROL PERIOD OR HISTORIC DESIGNATION. AND TWO STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REPLACING PLY GEM 1100 BASED ON FINDING C REGARDING SASH PROFILE DEPTH, COLOR FINISH AND NAILING PINS WINDOWS THAT ADHERE TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOW REPLACEMENT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY ALUMINUM, ALUMINUM, CLAD WOOD, OR FULLY WOOD PRODUCTS. UH, AS YOU MAY HAVE HEARD IN MY FINDING THAT THIS, UH, PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE INTERIM CONTROL PERIOD FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION, UM, I HAVE THE APPLICANT, RODRIGO ON THE LINE. RODRIGO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN, UH, WHY YOU'RE PURSUING THESE, UH, THESE MODIFICATIONS? UM, SURE. UM, YEAH, I WAS, UM, WORKING UNDER MY GRANDFATHER. UH, HE IS AN ARCHITECT OF MEXICO AND, UH, HE WANTED TO DO HIS FIRST FLIP IN SAN ANTONIO, AND THEN HE GOT HIT WITH A, A NEIGHBORHOOD TRYING TO PREVENT THE DEMOLITION AND WHICH WE AGREED TO PREVENT OURSELVES AFTER WE, UM, FOUND OUT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED TO KEEP THE HOME. AND WE, MY GRANDFATHER'S GOAL IN THIS HOUSE IS JUST TO BETTER IT, UM, MODERNIZE IT AS IT'S HAD A COUPLE ADDITIONS THAT WERE, I GUESS, NOT SCHEDULED WITH THE CITY BEFORE US, LIKE A, UH, MASTER BATH ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. UM, ALL THE WINDOWS, UH, ARE REPLACED WITH, UH, JUST LIKE SOME PRETTY, UH, LOW QUALITY WINDOWS THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THAT PICTURE, LIKE KIND OF LEANING UP TO IT. SO I'M JUST WHITE VINYL. SO MY GRANDFATHER HAD GONE AND ALREADY PURCHASED THESE WINDOWS, UM, BEFOREHAND OF, UH, KNOWING THAT THE HOUSE IS GONNA GO THROUGH ALL THIS HISTORIC STUFF AND THE VENDOR THEMSELVES ARE SAYING THAT THE WINDOWS CANNOT BE RETURNED. SO NOW HE'S IN THE PICKLE OF HAVING THESE WINDOWS ON HAND AND NOWHERE TO PUT HIM. UM, HE WANTED TO CHANGE THE LAYOUT OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO HAVE A LARGER GAME ROOM, BEING ABLE TO LOOK INTO THE KITCHEN AND HAVING THE DOOR IN ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION KIND OF WOULD PUT A DOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LIVING ROOM AND, UH, JUST KIND OF RUIN THE FLOW OF HIS DESIGN. SO THAT'S WHERE HE WAS GOING ON, MOVING THE, UH, DOOR ITSELF TO THE MIDDLE OF THAT PICTURE ON THE BOTTOM CORNER. SO OTHER THAN THAT, HE WANTS TO KEEP THE HOUSE AS, UH, HISTORIC AS POSSIBLE. UM, SAME COLOR, SAME FINISHES. UM, HE'S GONNA PUT THE CEDAR, UH, PLANKS ON THE SIDING. AND WE JUST FINISHED, UH, THE, UH, LEVELING OF THE PROPERTY AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE PICTURES OF THE SIDING TO THE HISTORIC SOCIETY SO THEY CAN IMPROVE THE SIDING ON THE SKIRT OF THE BUILDING. AND YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I GOT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, CITIZEN COMMENTS? YES. UM, PATTY ZIONS, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE AT 1206 WEST EGAR. THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED FOR ITS ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD DAMAGE THE ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS HOUSE IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF A FRONT GABLE CRAFTSMAN REV RESIDENCE FEATURING A SEPARATE GABLE ELEMENT WITH JERK AND HEAD OVER FULL WIDTH FRONT PORCH, THE PORCH, AND A BANDED, AND THE BANDED WINDOWS ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PORCH EMPHASIZED THE HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRAFTSMAN STYLE, MOVING OR REMOVING WINDOWS AND DOORS FROM THE ON THE FRONT ELEVATION, ADDING A COLUMN AND CREATING A NEW ENTRYWAY. CREATING A NEW ENTRYWAY, ALL HARM THIS HORIZONTAL EMPHASIS AND MOVES THE HOUSE AWAY FROM THE BUNGALOW STYLE. THE OWNERS HAVE A STRONG DESIRE FOR INDOOR, INDOOR WALL SPACE AND NO OPENINGS. ELEMENTS CAN BE FIXED IN PLACE, SUCH AS THE SETBACK DOOR ON THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE HOUSE. OFTEN NEW INTERIOR LAYOUTS CREATE NEW USES, BUT ORIGINAL CHARACTER FINDING FEATURES SHOULD REMAIN ON THE EXTERIOR, ESPECIALLY ON THE FRONT FACADE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. YES, YOUR HONOR. UM, I FEEL LIKE MAYBE I WOULD SUGGEST A SITE VISIT, UM, PROBABLY ALSO EVEN HELP ON THE DRUG DESIGNATION, BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS COULD BE A CASE LIKE, UM, THE ONE YOU, UM, YOU AND I WENT TO WHERE THERE'S, THERE'S SO MANY MODIFICATIONS IN FRAMING AND KIND OF GET AN IDEA OF THE PROPERTY AND RIGHT THERE KIND OF DECIDE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE HARD TO DECIDE JUST BASED ON THESE PICTURES, UM, BECAUSE OF ALL THE CHANGES BOTH ON THE INSIDE AND THE OUTSIDE. I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT, [03:25:01] MR. CHAIR. I WOULD SECOND THAT AS A MOTION. I, I MOVE, I MOVE FOR D R C IF NOBODY ELSE WANTS. YEAH, I'LL SECOND IT. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE. UM, I, I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT THIS PROJECT, IT, IT KIND OF, UH, THAT ILLUSTRATES RIGHT, THE CAUTION, UH, THAT, THAT WE REALLY, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE AWARE OF THE HISTORY OF HOW THESE THINGS, UH, OCCUR AND THE, THE HARDSHIP THAT IT PLACES ON OWNERS, UM, Y YOU KNOW, THE YOUNG, THE YOUNG MEN MENTIONED THAT, THAT THE WINDOWS WERE PURCHASED PRIOR TO, AND WE KNOW THE REST OF THE STORY, RIGHT? UH, WHICH MEANS THAT WHEN THE WINDOWS WERE PURCHASED FOR THIS HOUSE, THEY WERE PURCHASED WITH COMPLETE, UM, WITH COMPLETE RIGHTS. THERE WAS NO, UM, UM, UH, LIMITATION TO WHAT, WHAT WAS POSSIBLE WITH RESPECT TO REPLACING A WINDOW. UH, AND THEN WHEN THE HOUSE IS GONNA GO FOR DEMOLITION, WELL, THE HOUSE THEN, UH, GOES FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION, AND THEN ALL OF THE RULES CHANGE. SO, SO, SO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE IT SPEAKS TO WHEN WE, WHEN THIS CASE CAME BEFORE US, AND I KIND OF USE THE TERM WEAPONIZING OF THE, OF THE, OF THE SITUATION. I DON'T MEAN THAT BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL HARM THAT IT CREATES. I THINK THIS SITUATION REALLY ILLUSTRATES AND DEMONSTRATES, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO, TO, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE WATCHING THIS, THIS CASE TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE. AND ALSO THOUGH FOR STAFF TO, TO, TO SEE, UH, WHEN, WHEN THE PROCESS IS UTILIZED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT, THAT IT CAN REALLY PRESENT, UM, UM, A, A A, UH, AN ECONOMIC, UH, HARDSHIP, A A SITUATION TO AN OWNER WHO WITHIN THEIR, WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS HAVE ALREADY MADE ALTERATIONS. SO I DO THINK THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER GRU'S, UH, UH, OBSERVATION OF A OF A D R C IS, IS WELL IN PLACE. UH, I JUST WANNA ALSO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT I, I'M VERY VOCAL OF, OF, UH, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T MEAN TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO, BUT, BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF MY, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, NOT, NOT ACCEPTING OF THE MOVEMENT TO, TO, TO CONTINUE THE, THE, UH, THE, UH, UH, LANDMARK DESIGNATION IS PRECISELY BECAUSE OF, OF, UH, THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES TO THE APPLICANT. UH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO A D R C A SITE. D R C IS THAT CORRECT? COMMISSIONER GROUP? SORRY. YES, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. UH, MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. GROUP? AYE. BETSON. AYE. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. UM, THAT'S IT FOR INDIVIDUAL ITEMS. WE [Approval of HDRC Meeting Minutes for March 17, 2021] HAVE MINUTES. UM, WE DO NEED TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S FOR MARCH 17TH. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. YES, SIR. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 24TH, 2021. MARCH 17TH. SORRY. MARCH 17TH. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. EXCUSE GABE. SECOND. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 17TH, 2021. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE FOR A EXPEDIENT, UH, COMMISSION MEETING TODAY. I THINK IT WENT VERY WELL. UM, UH, MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. MOVE TO ADJOURN. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. CAN OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU EVERYONE. THANK. * 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.