* 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. [00:00:04] FOR LIVE. I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21ST, 2021. [Roll Call] MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ HERE. FISH. HERE. GIBBS? HERE. VELASQUEZ? HERE. AREOLA. HERE. ERON? HERE. CARPENTER. HERE. GROUP. HERE. BOWMAN? HERE. FETZER HERE. HERE. UM, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, WE DO HAVE A BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING TRANSLATION SERVICES FOR THE MEETING. I THANK YOU. THANK [Chairman’s Statement] YOU. MAY WILL YOU 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 SCOTT CARPENTER. IT IS A FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION TO ADVISE THE CITY MANAGER AND ALL RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENTS CONCERNING ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS FOR PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS FOR LANDMARKS ON CITY PROPERTY, IN 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. THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH THIS MEETING THROUGH LIVESTREAM. THEY CAN ALSO LISTEN TO THE MEETING THROUGH AUDIO ONLY BY CALLING 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3 IN ENGLISH OR IN SPANISH. THE MEETING IS BEING RECORDED IN SPANISH. FOR THOSE APPLICANTS OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT REQUIRE TRANSLATION SERVICES. THE INTERPRETER WILL TRANSLATE OVER THE PHONE AS NECESSARY IN AN EFFORT TO HEAR ALL CASES ON THE AGENDA, AS WELL AS TO MINIMIZE THE LENGTH OF THE MEETING. APPLICANTS WILL NEED TO SUMMARIZE THEIR STATEMENTS AND BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION EACH HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO MINUTES FOR THEIR COMMENTS, AND EACH COMMISSIONER WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS REGARDING EACH APPLICATION. APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF ANY TYPE OF PERMIT. PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ALL WORK. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR WORK APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE EMAILED TO TO YOU WITHIN 10 DAYS. NO WORK OF ANY TYPE IS TO BE STARTED WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROPRIATE CITY PERMITS AFTER A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. THIS TIME I'LL ASK O H P STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TODAY'S MEETING. YES. THANK YOU. UM, THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. UM, WE FIRST WANT TO, UM, INTRODUCE AND WELCOME OUR NEW COMMISSIONER REPRESENTING COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE STEVE ZUMA. THIS IS HIS FIRST HEARING AND WE'RE, UM, GRATEFUL TO HAVE HIM. SO WELCOME, STEVE. UM, NOW WE'RE GONNA PUT THE CASE LIST ON THE SCREEN. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE [CONSENT AGENDA] HAVE 15 ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. UM, ITEM THREE AS A RECUSAL FROM COMMISSIONER LAO. SO COMMISSIONER LAO WILL ACTUALLY RECUSE FROM THE VOTE ON CONSENT. UM, THE FIRST THING I'M GONNA DO IS READ THE, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR THESE ITEMS. AND THEN FROM THERE WE CAN SEE IF COMMISSIONERS WISH TO PULL ANY ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION. UM, SO THE FIRST, UM, WE HAVE COMMENTS FOR ITEM 3, 2 1 1 5 NORTH INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35, ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE, I'M SORRY, THE ITEM 4 2 1 2 EAST DEWEY. UM, THIS COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS, UH, KING WILLIAMS OR THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO SUPPORTS HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR TWO 12 EAST DEWEY PLACE. THE HOUSE MEETS CRITERIA FIVE AS AN INTACT EXAMPLE OF A CRAFTSMAN STYLE RESIDENCE AND CRITERIA 13 AS EXHIBITING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN ELIGIBLE LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT. IN ADDITION, THE HOUSE MEETS CRITERION EIGHT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF ITS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND MATERIALS, AS WELL AS ITS LOCATION. THE HOUSE CONFORMS TO THE CONFIGURATION SHOWN ON THE 1931 SANDBORN MAP AND RETAINS MANY ORIGINAL FEATURES SUCH AS A BATTERED FOUNDATION, SKIRT, SIDING, FENESTRATION, AND DECORATIVE BARGE BOARD. IN THE GABLE END, ALTERATIONS TO THE SKIRT MATERIAL PORCH FLOOR AND COLUMNS CAN BE REPLICATED IN PART BASED ON EARLIER GOOGLE STREET VIEW PHOTOS. LANDMARK DESIGNATION WILL ALLOW THE OWNER TO, TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TAX INCENTIVES AND PRESERVE THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THIS LOT CENTERED BETWEEN TWO OTHER HISTORIC STRUCTURES. UM, THE NEXT WE HAVE, UM, [00:05:03] COMMENTS TO BE READ FOR ITEM TEN FOUR OH SIX NORTH PINE. THIS COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL STORE DISTRICT. UM, IT SIMPLY SAYS WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. UM, I WILL NOTE FOR SOME OF THESE, THERE ARE LETTERS IN YOUR PACKETS THAT WILL NOT BE READ, BUT THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU ON THE SHARED FOLDER. UM, ITEM SEVEN, BELIEVE WE HAVE, IS THAT A CALLER, LAUREN? OKAY. SO WE HAVE A LIVE CALL FOR ITEM SEVEN, LISA LIND. RACHEL, ARE YOU THE ONE WHO HAS LISA ON THE LINE? YES, LISA IS ON THE LINE. LISA, GO AHEAD AND HAVE YOUR TWO MINUTES. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, THIS IS LISA LIND ON BEHALF OF THE KING WILLIAM ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND CONCUR WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS TWO THROUGH SEVEN. WE ALSO CONCUR WITH STIPULATIONS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR. WE DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE OR STIPULATIONS ONE AND FIVE. OUR CONCERNS ARE AS FOLLOWS, THE FRONT DECK, ALL OF THE PROPOSED SUGGESTED DESIGNS FOR THE FRONT DECK WILL ALTER THE ORIGINAL CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE. WE RECOMMEND THE LEAST INVASIVE APPROACHES THE MOST APPROPRIATE IN PRESERVING THE CHARACTER OF THIS FORMER DUPLEX. EXTERIOR PAINTING AND NEW LANDSCAPING WILL PROVIDE GREAT BENEFIT. SINCE THE PROPOSED FRONT GUEST ROOM AND OFFICE ARE ACCESSED THROUGH THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE, THERE IS NO FUNCTIONAL NEED TO ALTER THE EXISTING CURVED CONCRETE STEPS, SIDEWALK AND STOOP TO THE TWO FRONT DOORS. IF, HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION ELECTS TO APPROVE ITEM ONE, ALTERING THE FRONT AND STIPULATION ONE. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE NEW STOOPS AND STAIRS BE LIMITED TO EACH OF THE FRONT DOORS AND NOT CONNECTED ACROSS THE FRONT WITH A CONTINUOUS DECK. TWO. REGARDING THE PORCH DECK, RAILS AND SKIRTING, WE SUGGEST THAT THE DETAILED DRAWINGS REQUESTED IN STIPULATION TWO BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ANY PORCH DECK, RAILS AND SKIRTING AND SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. AND FINALLY, THREE, THE FRONT DRIVE GATE. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE POSITION OF THE FRONT DRIVE GATE IN ITEM SEVEN BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED AND NOT RECESSED TO THE FRONT FACE OF THE HOUSE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF IN STIPULATION FIVE. NOTE THAT ALL OTHER DRIVEWAY GATES ON THIS BLOCK ARE IN LINE WITH THE FRONT FENCE. THANK YOU. MUTED. UM, WE DO HAVE COMMENTS FOR ITEM 10. UM, LET'S PUT THAT ON THE SCREEN. I DON'T, I DUNNO WHAT HAPPENED THERE. UM, THIS COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT, UM, ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. OH, I'VE DONE THIS ONE. WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. OKAY. ITEM 11, UM, 5 0 1 SOUTH JOSEPHINE TOBIN. THIS COMES FROM DREA GARZA, UH, PRESIDENT OF THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THE M P N A SUPPORTS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE WOODLAND LAKE PARK ISLAND HOUSE. WE THANK THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS AND INVESTMENTS TO INCREASE THE UTILIZATION OF THE ISLAND HOUSE FOR THE COMMUNITY WITH THE INTERIOR MODIFICATIONS. UM, NEXT WE HAVE COMMENTS FOR ITEM 13. UM, THIS COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT, UM, ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL SORT DISTRICT, UM, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. ONE SECOND. THAT ONE WAS COPIED AND PASTED, SO WE NEED TO FIND WHAT THE ACTUAL COMMENT WAS. ONE MOMENT PLEASE. SORRY, COMMISSIONERS. WE WANNA MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT COMMENTS FOR THAT ONE. UM, SO WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL FORM TO MAKE SURE THERE WASN'T IN THERE. [00:10:08] OKAY, SO THAT IS THE CORRECT COMMENT. UM, BUT THE, THE WRONG ADDRESS WAS ON IT. SO THE COMMENT FOR ITEM 13 IS THAT THEY SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION. UM, HAVING HEARD THOSE COMMENTS TO COMMISSIONERS WISH TO PULL ANY ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. I'M SORRY, ONE MORE THAT'S NOT ON HERE. I, ITEM 15 3 15 EAST PEON, UM, PATTY ZIONS FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY. CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO OPPOSES THE PROPOSED WHOLESALE WINDOW REPLACEMENT AT THE LANDMARK AND NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED ST. MARK'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH. WE AGREE WITH O H P STAFF THAT THE WINDOW SHOULD BE REPAIRED AND RESTORED IN PLACE WHEREVER POSSIBLE, BOTH TO MAXIMIZE THEIR EFFICIENCY AS WELL AS PRESERVE THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THIS LANDMARK STRUCTURE. THROUGH OUR ANNUAL, UH, BUILDING GRANTS PROGRAM, WE OFTEN FUND SUCCESSFUL WINDOW REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT PROJECTS SIMILAR TO THIS ONE WHERE THE WOOD WINDOWS ARE IN WORSE CONDITION THAN THOSE INCLUDED WITH THIS SUBMISSION. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS ON CONSENT CO. CORY, I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM 14. OKAY. WE'LL MARK THAT ON THERE. CORY, I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, I, I JUST, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES. SO FOR ITEM 13, EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS OPPOSED, THEY'RE SUPPORTING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, SO YOU SAID THAT COMMENT IN THERE WAS WRONG. CORRECT. SO THEY, SO THEY ACTUALLY SUPPORT NOT OPPOSED. YOU'RE ON MUTE, CORY, OR IF YOU'RE SPEAKING YOU'RE ON MUTE. I KNOW I'M ASKING MY COLLEAGUE A QUESTION FIRST. OKAY, GOTCHA. GOTCHA. IT WAS AN, IT WAS A, A MISTAKE. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. MR. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM SEVEN AND 15. OKAY. ANY OTHERS NOT? WE CAN GO AHEAD. YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER, UM, CASES BEING PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS ONE THROUGH SIX, ITEMS EIGHT THROUGH 13, UH, WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. COMMISSIONER GIBBS, I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE ISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. AYE. AREOLA? AYE. ? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. RU AYE. BOWMAN? AYE. THATOR? AYE. LAVO IS RECUSED. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. THAT'LL BRING US TO ITEM SEVEN. UM, STEPHANIE, DO YOU HAVE THAT APPLICANT ON THE LINE? UH, SHE'S ATTEMPTING TO GET THE OWNER TO, SO [14. 21-3033 Address/Description: 1914 ROGERS AVE 925 E CARSON 1913 ROGERS AVE 1919 ROGERS AVE 919 E CARSON 913 E CARSON 918 QUITMAN ST 808 QUITMAN ST 514 PIERCE 512 PIERCE HDRC Case No.: 2019-139 Landmark Name: Individual Landmark Historic District Name: Government Hill Applicant: Ashley Farrimond Request: Construction of multi-story, multi-family residential structures to feature commercial space City Council Dist.: 2] WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 14 IF EDWARD IS READY WITH THAT APPLICANT. I EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? LOOKS LIKE HE'S BRIEFING THE APPLICANT. EDWARD, WE STILL CAN'T HEAR YOU. [00:15:16] IS THAT STEPHANIE? ALRIGHT, I'M, UM, COREY, I'M HERE NOW WITH ASHLEY FAIRMONT, THE APPLICANT. LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH ITEM 14. SO THIS WAS PULLED FOR A QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ? YES, I, I'M NOT, UH, FAMILIAR WITH THE, WITH THE, UH, APPLICATION, SO REVIEW IT. IT JUST SEEMS, UH, NEW TO ME. SO I, I WANTED TO, UH, GIVE THE, UM, UH, APPLICANT OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE, THE PROJECT OR WHAT THEIR STATUS IS AND WHERE THEY ARE WITH THIS PROJECT. SURE. YEAH. HI, GOOD AFTERNOON. UH, THIS IS ASHLEY FAIRMONT, KILLING GRIFFIN IN FAIRMONT. UM, UM, BILL DAVIES, ARE YOU ON THE LINE AS WELL? OKAY. I'M SORRY. I WAS JUST CHECKING TO SEE IF OUR ARCHITECT HAD BEEN ABLE TO JOIN YET. UM, YEAH, COMMISSIONER, SO THIS IS A, THIS IS A MIXED USE PROJECT. IT'S PART OF A LARGER OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, UM, THAT THE MAJORITY OF, OF WHICH HAS ALREADY CONCLUDED. UM, IN TERMS OF THE, THE STAFF OR THE PRESENTATION PACKET, IF YOU GO TO PAGE 27 OF THAT, THAT'S AN IN KIND OF A, AN OVERALL EXHIBIT OF THE AREA AND THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. SO THERE'S AN, AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 1422 EAST GRAYSON. UM, WE HAVE COME TO THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY LAST YEAR FOR, UM, SOME REHAB OF A HISTORIC BUILDING AT 1518 GRAYSON. IT WAS NORMALLY A PAWN SHOP AND THAT HAS BEEN CONVERTED OVER INTO COMMERCIAL SPACE. AND THEN WE HAVE ALSO BEEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION BEFORE FOR A HOUSE, UH, AT FIVE 16 PIERCE STREET THAT WAS, UH, DONATED TO THE CITY. UH, THAT HAS BEEN RELOCATED TO ANOTHER LOT IN GOVERNMENT HILL. AND THEN, UM, I THINK MAYBE BEFORE YOU JOINED THE COMMISSION, WE CAME FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT. IT HAS BEEN IN DESIGN FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND NOW WE'RE COMING FOR FINAL APPROVAL. AND THIS IS, UM, A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT. UM, YOU CAN SEE ON, ON THAT EXHIBIT, IT'S, IT'S THOSE BIG EMPTY PARKING LOT. AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN, IT IS MULTIFAMILY ALONG WITH A GARAGE. AND THAT GARAGE WILL SERVE THE OFFICE BUILDING AS WELL AS THAT COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT FRONT ON GRAYSON, UM, AS WELL AS A SMALL AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL SPACE THAT WILL BE WITHIN THE LARGER MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING. UM, THE NEXT SLIDE, SLIDE 28 IS JUST A SITE PLAN OF THE OVERALL MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON THOSE VACANT LOTS. AND THEN, UM, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME GOOD ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS FOR YOU. SO THEN SLIDE, UM, 31 THAT'LL GIVE YOU A GOOD VIEW OF THE PROJECT, UH, FROM CARSON STREET. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE THE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS. UH, THERE ARE THREE AND FOUR STORIES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN THE PARKING GARAGE, WHICH WILL BE SCREENED, UH, WITH SCREENING AS WELL AS THE VEGETATION. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OR IF YOU WANT US TO DIVE INTO THE DETAILS. IT'S 280 MULTIFAMILY UNITS. LET ME ASK, UH, UM, STAFF A QUESTION. CORY. CORY, IS THIS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE SEEING THIS ELEVATION? UM, SO AS THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, IT CAME PREVIOUSLY FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, UM, PRETTY SIMILAR IN APPEARANCE OF THIS, THE DIFFERENCES THAT THIS HAS A REDUCED HEIGHT REDUCED, THIS HAS A, WHAT, I'M SORRY, REDUCED HEIGHT COMPARED TO WHAT? RECEIVED CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER, I CAN ADD I PARTICIPATED IN THE LAST D R C FOLLOWING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. UM, I THINK, I THINK THIS WAS REVIEWED A NUMBER OF TIMES AND I CAN'T QUITE RECALL WHEN THE LAST TIME WAS. MAYBE ABOUT A YEAR AGO, OR MAYBE IT WAS TWO YEARS AGO. UH, BUT EVERYTHING WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND, UM, I BELIEVE ALSO SOME RECOMMENDATIONS BY T H C AND STATE WHICH, UH, LED TO A FURTHER REDUCTION IN HEIGHT FROM THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. YES SIR. UH, IF YOU'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, I'M READY TO ENTER, UH, TO MOVE WITH STEPS STIPULATIONS. UH, IF, [00:20:01] IF THAT'S A MOTION, I'LL, I'LL SECOND YOUR MOTION SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. ANY DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ AYE. FISH? AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. AREOLA? AYE. ZUMA? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. RUB? AYE. ROMAN? AYE. AYE. FETZER? AYE. LA AYE. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY, I THINK WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR THE APPLICANT FROM [15. 21-3131 Address/Description: 315 E PECAN ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-164 Landmark Name: St Mark's Episcopal Church Applicant: Tobin Hays/Ford, Powell and Carson Architects and Planners Request: Window replacement City Council Dist.: 1] MISSION STREET. SO LET'S MOVE ON WITH ITEM 15. AND WE HAVE MULTIPLE PHONE CALLS TO MAKE FOR THIS ONE. SO ONE MOMENT. NOW, UM, STEPH, I'M GONNA SEND YOU IN UNMUTE. HI EVERYONE. I HAVE ALLISON CHAMBERS FROM FORT PAUL AND CARSON A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CLIENT ON THE LINE FOR THREE 15 EAST PECAN. AND I BELIEVE RACHEL HAS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE OWNER. RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE? YES. AND I HAVE THE REVEREND ELIZABETH NOLTON ON THE LINE. GREAT. CHAIRMAN FETZER, DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNER? YES, I DID. UM, ONE CLARIFICATION QUESTION FOR STAFF AND THEN A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. UH, THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF ARE THAT THE FIRST FLOOR WINDOWS BE REPAIRED OR, UH, REPLACED IN KIND AND THAT, UM, THE UPPER FLOORS, Y'ALL RECOMMEND THE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS. UH, JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT ON, UH, ELEVATION, I THINK IT'S PAGE 24 THAT YOU HAVE IT UP. UM, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S FOUR FLOORS IN THIS BUILDING, BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY ONLY TWO FLOORS. THERE'S A FELLOWSHIP HALL ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND A BIG MEETING ROOM ON THE, UH, SECOND FLOOR. AND SO I WANT TO CONFIRM OR GET CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF WHAT Y'ALL ARE CONSIDERING FIRST FLOOR WINDOWS. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. UM, SO THE INTENTION WAS THOSE AT GROUND LEVEL, SO THE ONES THAT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, UM, AT EYE LEVEL AND POTENTIALLY TOUCH WITH YOUR HANDS. UM, SO EVEN THOUGH THOSE, THAT SECOND COURSE OF WINDOWS IS VISIBLE FROM THE FIRST FLOOR, THOSE ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. AND THEN I BELIEVE IT'S DRAWING ON PAGE 35, OR LET'S SEE, 36 AT OUR D R C. I KNOW, UM, I KNOW Y'ALL SAID Y'ALL ARE STILL WORKING WITH THE MANUFACTURER TO GET YOUR DETAILING CORRECT, BUT LOOKING AT THE HISTORIC WINDOWS ON THE RIGHT, IT IS NOT, THE HEAD OF THE WINDOW IS NOT A TRUE, UH, SEMICIRCLE. IT SORT OF COMES TO A SHALLOW POINT, WHEREAS THE SHOP DRAWING SHOWS MORE OF A SEMICIRCLE. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL WILL BE ABLE TO CORRECT WITH THE SHOP DRAWINGS? UH, YES, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CORRECT THAT. OKAY. THOSE WERE MY ONLY CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS. UM, I BELIEVE I'M AGREE WITH, UH, CONSERVATION SOCIETY [00:25:01] ON THIS ONE, THAT THERE ARE SOME DAMAGED WINDOWS. UM, BUT I BELIEVE AFTER LOOKING AT, UH, A BUNCH OF THEM ON SITE THAT THEY COULD BE RESTORED OR IF THEY CAN'T THEN, UH, REPLACED IN KIND. BUT I'M, I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO SAY. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, MR. CARPENTER. UH, JUST TO SHARE, UH, MY OBSERVATIONS FROM THE, UH, THE SITE VISIT THAT WE HAD, UH, LAST WEEK WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UM, THE, UH, THE TEAM, UH, LED US AROUND THE BUILDING AND, UH, SHOWED US THE, THE CONDITION, PARTICULARLY THE WINDOWS THAT ARE AT THE LOWER LEVEL THAT FACTOR INTO, UH, STAFF'S, UH, COMMENTS. UM, WE DID, YOU KNOW, TAKE A PEEK UP STAIRWELLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT BECAUSE OF SITE CONDITIONS. UH, BEING AN ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION SITE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WERE RELUCTANT TO GO UP AND, AND, UH, DEAL WITH, UH, MUCH OF THAT, UH, STATE ON THE GROUND LEVEL. YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE THE, UH, THE DETERIORATION IS OF TWO SORTS. ONE IS A TRAUMATIC ONE THAT CAME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF THE COLLAPSE, THE SCAFFOLDING THAT, UH, DAMAGED NOT ONLY SEVERAL WINDOWS, BUT UH, MASONRY ELEMENTS, UH, CASTSTONE ELEMENTS. AND THEN THERE IS THE OTHER CAT CATEGORY OF JUST DETERIORATION OVER TIME, PARTICULARLY FOR UPPER WINDOWS THAT ARE MORE DIFFICULT TO ACCESS, UH, AND MAINTAIN. AND THERE'S KIND OF A, UH, SORT OF AN AXIOM IN, IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION THAT IF IT'S OUTSIDE OUTTA MIND, IT DOESN'T GET MAINTAINED. UH, SO I, I THINK I'M IN SUPPORT OF, UH, STAFFS, UH, THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, RETAINING THE LOWER LEVEL WINDOWS THAT ARE IN MORE PROXIMITY FOR INSPECTION AND, AND CHANGING OUT FOR, UH, LESS MAINTENANCE OF INTENSIVE WINDOWS FOR THE UPPER LEVELS. I, I UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE OF THAT RECOMMENDATION, BUT I THINK THE EXTENT OF REPLACEMENT IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. AND I CAN'T THINK OF ANOTHER PROJECT WHERE WE'VE DONE, UH, WHOLESALE REPLACEMENT QUITE TO THIS SCALE. AND, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE MASONRY, THE WINDOWS ARE A REALLY IMPORTANT CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURE OF THIS BUILDING. AND I'M CONCERNED THAT, UM, IN THE ABSENCE OF OF, OF DETAILED SHOP DRAWINGS OR MOCK-UPS FROM THE MANUFACTURER, UH, I'M NOT SURE I CAN SUPPORT A WHOLESALE REPLACEMENT. THANK YOU CHAIR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ? YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE, UH, APPLICANT. IS THE APPLICANT THERE? YES. WE'RE HERE. UH, I, I'M, I'M, UH, YOU KNOW, WANNA ASK YOU A QUESTION BASED ON KIND OF A, UH, AN OBSERVATION. I'M, I'M, I WANT TO BE THOUGHTFUL AND MINDFUL OF, OF REPLACEMENT OF ANY WINDOWS THAT THAT WINDOW WINDOW IS, IS REPLACED WITH THE APPROPRIATE, UH, REPLACEMENT WINDOW. THAT YOU ALSO DON'T END UP IN A SITUATION WHERE 10 YEARS DOWN THE LINE, YOU, YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE WINDOWS AND THEN YOU DON'T FIND THE SAME PRODUCT. RIGHT. SO I, I GUESS THERE'S SOME RATIONALE BEHIND THE IDEA OF, OF, UH, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY AS A CHURCH TO, WITH LIMITED FUNDING SOMETIMES RIGHT. TO, TO DO IT ALL AT ONE TIME. I, I WANNA ASK YOU, WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR, UH, SUBMITTING FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF ALL OF THE WINDOWS? SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT SUPO, WE'RE NOT SUBMITTING FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF ALL THE WINDOWS. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO, UM, RETAIN THE, THE WINDOWS THAT ARE AT EYE LEVEL AND REPAIR THOSE IN PLACE. UM, YEAH, THE RATIONALE FOR THE REPLACEMENT IS, UM, HAS TO DO WITH WHAT SCOTT MENTIONED AS FAR AS ACCESS AND MAINTAINABILITY IN OVER THE LONG RUN. MM-HMM. , UM, OF THESE WINDOWS. I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, THE, THE REVEREND, UH, WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS. UM, OKAY. YES, I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. UM, I THINK LIKE ALL INSTITUTIONS WE'RE COMPLETELY, UM, DEPENDENT ON THE GENEROSITY OF OUR MEMBERS AND LIKE MANY CHURCHES WE'RE SEEING OUR OLDER GENERATION THAT HAS GIVEN MORE GENEROUSLY TO THE CHURCH AGING OUT PRETTY QUICKLY. UM, AND SO WE HAVE A PRETTY LIMITED MAINTENANCE BUDGET AT THIS POINT. AND SO PART OF THE REASON OUR WINDOWS ARE IN THE STATE THEY'RE IN IS BECAUSE OF, UM, THE LACK OF RESOURCES. UM, EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE END UP SPENDING ON MAINTENANCE TAKES AWAY FROM WHAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH IN OUR MINISTRY AND OUTREACH TO THE CITY. AND SO IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT BALANCING ACT FOR US. AND SO WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH A STAFF RECOMMENDATION [00:30:01] THAT ALLOWS US TO, UM, RETAIN THE STREET LEVEL LOOK, BUT THEN ALSO, UM, PREPARE OURSELVES FOR A MUCH LONGER VIEW IN TERMS OF OUR OWN, UM, ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP THESE, UM, HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN THE IMPORTANT STATE THEY NEED TO BE IN. OKAY. WELL, WELL, THANK YOU. AND WHEN IT, UH, CAN I SAY ONE MORE THING ABOUT THE, UM, YEAH, OF COURSE. GO AHEAD. OR SOMEONE'S COMMENT ABOUT THE, UH, THE NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND THE SAME REPLACEMENTS IF YOU NEED TO REPAIR THEM IN THE FUTURE. MM-HMM. , THE GOAL IS THAT THESE ARE VERY COMPLETELY CUSTOM AND, UM, WE'RE WORKING VERY DILIGENTLY WITH THE MANUFACTURER TO GET ALL OF THE DETAILING, UM, TO ESSENTIALLY REPLICATE THE WINDOWS THAT ARE THERE. AND SO IF THEY EVER NEEDED TO DO THE SAME IN THE FUTURE, THEY, THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AGAIN AND JUST VERY DILIGENTLY WORK TO REPLICATE WHAT IS THERE. OKAY. UH, MR. MR. CHAIR? UM, YES, SIR. I'M NOT SURE. I, I HAVE A QUESTION REALLY MORE QUESTION FOR YOU. I'M NOT SURE THAT I SHOULD WAIT TO, FOR DISCUSSION, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE. SO I'D LIKE TO DO THAT. JUST WAIT FOR DISCUSSION TO ASK A QUESTION OF FELLOW COMMISSIONER. OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, AND I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION, BUT I, I SHOULD PROBABLY EXPLAIN MY THINKING JUST BRIEFLY. UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE, THESE THREE BAY GANGED WINDOWS ARE AN ISSUE WHEN IT COMES FOR, UH, REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT, PARTICULARLY IN SOME OF THESE, UH, HARD, HARD TO ACCESS LOCATIONS. AND THAT AT LEAST SOME, IF NOT MORE THAN HAVE SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE BEYOND, UH, SOMETHING THAT'S REPAIRABLE. I THINK IT'S REASONABLE THAT, UH, I THINK STAFF'S, UH, FINDINGS HERE IS REASONABLE IN THAT THEY OFFER THE APPLICANT, UM, A PLAN TO, TO REINFORCE, REBUILD, REPAIR, THOSE, THOSE WINDOWS THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST IMPACT WITH THE HISTORIC COMPONENTS AND TO MAINTAIN THE, THE THREE SET WINDOWS AS A COHERENT FEATURE. SO I'M IN SUPPORTIVE OF STAFF'S POSITIONS AND I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STIPULATIONS ONE THROUGH THREE. YOUR, YOU CAN CHECK UP YOUR MASTER APPEAL. I WOULD SECOND THEN, COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? WELL, WELL, UH, CHAIRMAN, I, YES. I JUST WONDER, YOU HAD A COMMENT ABOUT THE, UM, UM, SHOP DRAWINGS AND I, I DIDN'T KNOW IF IF OTHER WINDOWS THAT THAT MIGHT BE APPLICABLE SHOULD PEN THE SHOP DRAWING. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO BE AS THOUGHTFUL AS POSSIBLE THAT IF, IF THE APPLICANT THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE SMART TO ASK FOR, FOR A CONTINUANCE TO, TO GET APPROPRIATE SHOP DRAWINGS. BUT I MEAN, I, I SUPPORT, UH, COMMISSIONER FISHER'S MOTION. I JUST, AS BEST AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS WE WANNA BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT, ABOUT THAT. PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO WHAT YOU WERE NOTICING IN THE WINDOW THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE COMPLETE ARCH. I BELIEVE IT'S JUST A, I'M NOT SURE. I THINK THAT'S COVERED IN STIPULATION TOO. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, WELL, THAT, THAT'S ALL. IT'S JUST A COMMENT. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ AYE. FISH? AYE. AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ. AYE. AYE. AREOLA? AYE. ZUMA ON ON? AYE, CARPENTER? AYE. RU AYE BOWMAN? AYE BET. NAY. LA AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. UM, [7. 21-3123 Address/Description: 312 MISSION ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-163 Historic District Name: King William Applicant: Charles Riley Request: Exterior alterations, site modifications City Council Dist.: 1] WE ARE NOW ABLE TO GO BACK TO ITEM SEVEN. UM, DO I NEED TO UNMUTE JESSICA? OKAY. SORRY. WE SAID IT TWICE NOW. JESS, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO HIT STAR SIX. HEY GAR. HI THERE. ALRIGHT. UM, SO, UH, ITEM 7 3 12 MISSION STREET. UM, THIS WAS PULLED, UH, FOR QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. HI. SORRY, I WAS TAKING MY DAUGHTER UP AT SCHOOL RIGHT WHEN Y'ALL CALLED EARLIER. I'M SO SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. I'VE GOT, UM, AGAIN, IT'S A QUESTION FOR [00:35:01] STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION. THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS SHOWN, DRAWING OPTIONS FOR THE FRONT PORCH CONFIGURATIONS, AND I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS STATE WHICH ONE YOU'RE OPTING FOR. UM, SO LET'S PUT OPTION ONE ON THE SCREEN. WE CAN, UM, STEP, DO YOU KNOW WHAT PAGE THAT IS? 21 IS PAGE 21, LAUREN. OKAY. SO WE AREN'T RECOMMENDING, AREN'T RECOMMENDING THIS ONE EXACTLY. UM, BUT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS MOST CLOSE OUR, OUR RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS MOST CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH WHAT YOU SEE HERE. UM, BUT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE, THE STAIRS AND AS WELL AS RETAINING THE CONCRETE SOUPS BENEATH THE PROPOSED DECKING. SO NOW LET'S GO TO THE, THE RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE. LET'S ZOOM IN A LITTLE. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I CAN ADD A LITTLE TEXT TO THIS BECAUSE I WAS IN THE YES, PLEASE. UH, LAST WEEK. UM, IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF THE, THE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE D R C HAVE BEEN, UH, INCORPORATED, AT LEAST SOME OF THEM. UH, PREVIOUSLY WE SAW AN EXAMPLE WHERE THE PORCH WRAPPED ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE FRONT AND THEN DOWN TO THE SIDE, THE SIDE DOOR ESSENTIALLY SERVES AS THE FRONT DOOR TO THIS HOUSE. UH, WE TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE TO MAINTAIN THE TWO STA ELEMENTS AND PRESERVE THE CONCRETE STOOP SO THAT ANY ADDITION TO THE FRONT, UH, WOULD, COULD BE REVERSIBLE. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE YEAH. THEME HERE. SO THIS DRAWING IS STILL SHOWING ONE STAIR IN THE CENTER. AND STAFF STIPULATION ON ONE SAYS THAT THE, THE STAIR WIDTHS ALIGNED TO THE, TO THE EXISTING STOOPS. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'LL, WE'LL, YOU'LL SEE TWO FOUR FOOT WIDE STAIR WIDTHS HERE, WHICH SEEMED REASONABLE IN THE D R C. SO TWO FOOT, YES. TWO STAIRS ALIGNING WITH THE, WITH THE DOORS, BUT A CONTINUOUS PORCH ACROSS THE FRONT, CORRECT? YES. CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. THIS, THIS IS STEPHANIE. UM, YEAH, THAT IS, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING. SO THE, THIS ELEVATION WILL CHANGE SLIGHTLY. THE APPLICANT WASN'T ABLE TO TURN AROUND DRAWINGS, UM, RIGHT AWAY FOR THE HEARING. BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT CURTIS RECOUNTED FROM THE D R C IS WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION INCLUDES. AND THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THAT STIPULATION. ALRIGHT? YES, THIS ELEVATION, GO AHEAD. ELEVATION. ALSO, THE FRONT ELEVATION ALSO SHOWS IT LOOKS LIKE A TRANSOM BEING ADDED OVER THE PORCH DOORS. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT PART OF THE PROJECT? NO, THAT'S, UM, THAT'S HOW THE ARCHITECT DREW THE EXISTING DOORS. THE DOORS ARE STAYING, THEY'RE LIKE, UH, QUINTESSENTIAL CRAFTSMAN DOORS THAT HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE THREE. OKAY. YOU KNOW, THANK YOU. BUT NO, NO PENETRATION ON THE ENTIRE HOUSE IS PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED, UM, EXCEPT FOR WHAT'S RECOMMENDED ON THE SIDE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? I HAVE A QUESTION. COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ, FOR MEMBERS OF THE D R C I, I'M JUST WONDERING, UH, IS THE REASON WHY THIS IS APPROPRIATE IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT A, A PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT, I MEAN, IT CHANGES THE LOOK OF THE HOUSE COMPLETELY, BUT I'M THINKING THAT IT, THAT THE RATIONALE IS THAT IT'S NOT CREATING AN IRREVERSIBLE ALTERATION. MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN TRY TO RESPOND TO THAT. YES. YES, SIR. SO THE, THE SITUATION HERE ARE, THERE, THERE ARE TWO VERY SMALL CONCRETE SHALLOW, UH, STOOPS TO ACCESS THESE DOORS THAT ARE, CREATE AN ACCESSIBILITY PROBLEM. SO THERE WAS A DESIRE TO INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY HERE, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE A BUILD OUT AT THE LEVEL OF THE FLOOR. UM, SO IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE REVERSIBILITY. UH, ANOTHER OPTION THAT WE'VE CONSIDERED TO INCREASE, UH, ACCESSIBILITY MIGHT BE TO RECOMMEND, UM, THE SCALLOP STEPS BE RE POURED, YOU KNOW, RECREATED IN AN AREA THAT INCREASES ACCESSIBILITY, BUT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY DISRUPTIVE [00:40:02] AND OUT OF CHARACTER. SO THERE'S KIND OF A MULTI, A MULTITUDE OF PIECES HERE. UM, THE, THE LETTER FROM KING WILLIAM THAT WAS READ OR FROM THE, FROM THE CALLER SAID THAT IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO, UH, APPROVE THE FRONT PORCH ALTERATIONS THAT THEY RECOMMEND OR SUGGEST THAT THE PORCH NOT BE CONNECTED ACROSS THE FRONT, BUT INSTEAD SPLIT. I THINK THAT CREATES SOME ISSUES. AND I'M, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH, UH, STAFF'S FINDINGS HERE. I DO CONCUR WITH THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION ON ITEM FIVE, WHICH IS THE LOCATION OF THE FRONT GATE. AS, AS SUGGESTED BY THE STIPULATION, IT'S OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, CO COMMISSIONER, FISH, UH, ACCESSIBILITY. IS THAT IN TERMS OF A D A OR JUST IN TERMS OF LITTLE, A ACCESSIBILITY. LITTLE, LITTLE. A IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT THE STEP THAT YOU NEED TO APPROACH THAT DOOR, THE SCREEN DOOR IS OUT, IS A VERY SURFACE TO STEP ON. WE ENCOUNTERED THESE SORTS OF SITUATIONS FROM TIME TO TIME AND LOOK FOR REMEDIES HERE. IT'S UNPRECEDENTED. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. MR. CHAIR? YES MA'AM. YES MA'AM. I WAS AT THE D R C TOO, AND I JUST WANNA SAY I AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, IT'S AN UNUSUAL SETTING, AN ENTRANCE TO, TO A HOME. UM, I ALSO CONCUR WITH, UH, STAFF FINDINGS AND AGREE WITH THE, UH, THE SUGGESTION OF COMMISSIONER FISH ABOUT STIPULATION FIVE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS 1, 2, 3, 4 WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND ITEM FIVE AS SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, I, I'LL SECOND IT. UH, I DIDN'T DISCUSSION. I JUST, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I DON'T, I I DON'T THINK THAT I COULD SUPPORT IT, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THIS, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM, BUT I DON'T THINK THE SOLUTION IS IN CONCERT WITH THE AESTHETIC. IT CHANGES THE AESTHETIC COMPLETELY. AND JUST TO MY OWN MIND, I CAN SEE OTHER SOLUTIONS THAT, THAT MAINTAIN THE, THE ROUNDNESS, THE, THAT ELEMENT PART OF IT IS BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE STREET, YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF THE DIMENSION OR THE, OR THE, UH, THE PROPO, THE PROPORTION FROM THE ELEVATION. SO, SO, SO ALL OF THAT COULD BE PULLED FORWARD. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN WHAT IS PULLED FORWARD AND, AND THE DOOR GIVES YOU THE LANDING SPACE, YET YOUR, YOUR EXPERIENCE OF THE CIRCULAR CAN STILL BE, UM, PLAYED WITH IN, IN, IN A DESIGN SOLUTION. SO I, I ST I THINK THAT THEY HAVEN'T EXHAUSTED, UH, A SOLUTION THAT HELPS TO MAINTAIN THAT, THAT AESTHETIC. BUT I, I DO APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE D R C IN IT, BUT THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UM, A ROLL CALL PLEASE, MS. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR A SECOND? OH, YES, SIR. UH, SO COMMISSIONER FISH, WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD, UH, MAYBE PERMIT STAFF TO, TO REVIEW AND APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO THOSE STEPS THAT MIGHT CAPTURE SOME OF THAT KIND OF VALIER ASPECT OF THE, OF THE EXISTING STEPS, BUT REPOSITIONED IN, IN THE WAY THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE SHOWING HERE? OR IS THAT TOO MESSY? WELL, IF IT, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WOOD CONSTRUCTION, I KNOW THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED. SO CREATING THE ROUNDED STEPS OUT OF WOOD CONSTRUCTION IS CHALLENGING. UM, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE MATERIAL OF THESE PORCHES TO CONCRETE AND DOING CONCRETE POUR OVERLAYS, THAT MIGHT BE TOO MESSY. MAYBE, MAYBE THE MOTION SHOULD FAIL AND WE SHOULD TRY A DIFFERENT MOTION. OR PERHAPS JUST THE STEPS THEMSELVES ARE CONCRETE, NOT THE ENTIRE PORCH. THE NEW, THE, THE NEW STEPS IN FRONT ARE CONCRETE IN THAT, IN THAT SHAPE. WELL, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, UH, OR MACHINE BY THAT MOTION, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, IF THE PICTURE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS VERY IMPORTANT PICTURE, THERE'S A VOID BETWEEN THE TWO SECTIONS OF THE HOUSE. SO AS A, IT JUST SEEMS THAT THERE, THERE WASN'T ANY EFFORT TO WORK WITHIN A CRITERIA THAT WOULD SAY THAT THERE, THERE IS THE CHARACTER OF THIS DUPLEX OR, OR WHATEVER IT IS. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, THEY CAN ACHIEVE THAT SAME AESTHETIC, PULLING IT FORWARD. HOWEVER THEY DID THAT, PULLING IT FORWARD. IN WHICH CASE, COMMISSIONER FISHER, I COMPLETELY AGREE. AND [00:45:01] ALSO WITH WHAT, WHAT COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER IS, UH, I THINK ALLUDING TO, IS THAT, OR DIRECTLY SAYING IS THAT THE STEPS COULD BE CONCRETE STILL WITHOUT AFFECTING THE HOUSE IN AN IRREVERSIBLE WAY IN ANY WAY, MR. CHAIR, THAT'S EXACTLY, BECAUSE THEY'RE, THERE'S ONE ITEM THAT IS NOT BEING INCLUDED IN THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT THE FRONT DOOR IS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOME. AND SO THE FRONT PORCH, HOW IT'S DESIGNED BY THE WISH OF THE CLIENT IS BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO INTEGRATE INTO THAT EXISTING EXPANDING ONTO THAT EXISTING PORCH. THAT'S THE SECURE FRONT DOOR. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT LOOKING AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LIKE, SAY YOU WANTED TO DO AN ADDITION TO THE HOUSE, YOU'D PUT THE ADDITION AS FAR IN THE BACK, SO YOU WOULD SEE IT, THERE'S A REASON, THERE'S A SCIENCE BEHIND THAT, RIGHT? IT'S ABOUT WHAT IS PERCEIVED. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLAN, THE EXPERIENCE OF THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. AND THAT'S WHY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS IS AN ACCESSIBILITY ISSUE WITH A CAPITAL A OR AN ACCESSIBILITY ISSUE, JUST AS A WORD FOR ACCESS, RIGHT? THAT IT PUTS A, AN AESTHETIC, UM, ONUS ON THE, ON THE DESIGNER, RIGHT? UM, OTHERWISE WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING IS REALLY ALTERING THE FRONT OF THIS, UH, THIS, THIS DUPLEX OR WHAT IT APPEARS TO, AND IT KIND OF BRINGS INTO TO, TO MIND THAT LAST PROJECT THAT HAD THE TWO DOORS IN THE FRONT AND THEY HAD ALMOST THE SAME SITUATION AND THEY WERE KIND OF HELD TO, TO, TO TRY TO MAINTAIN THAT AESTHETIC. TH THIS THING KIND OF TURNS IT INTO LIKE A BEACH HOUSE IN A WAY. I MEAN, BUT IT'S AN OPINION. I I I DON'T, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LABOR YOURSELF TOO MUCH ON IT. I I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT I, UH, CLARIFY THAT. BUT IF, IF, IF THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT, I, I WOULD SECOND THAT IF IT WAS ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT MR. CARPENTER WAS, UH, TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. UM, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ AND THE, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT, UM, IF A PORCH IS ADDED ON THE FRONT OF THIS HOUSE, THAT THEY SHOULD BE TWO SEPARATE PORCHES TO, UH, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WAS ORIGINALLY A, A DUPLEX. UH, AND BASED ON THE DRAWINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, ACCESS TO THESE TWO FRONT ROOMS, UH, IS ACTUALLY THROUGH, UH, THROUGH THE MAIN HOUSE. AND SO THESE PORCHES, I ASSUME ARE JUST ACCESSORY OUTDOOR SPACES. AND, UM, SIMILAR TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SAID, LANDSCAPING, UH, BETWEEN THE TWO SEPARATE PORCHES MIGHT BE A WAY TO MAKE THIS A USABLE SPACE, A MORE INVITING SPACE INSTEAD OF PUTTING A CONTINUOUS PORCH ACROSS THE ENTIRE FRONT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MR. CHAIRMAN? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. YES. SCOTT WAS YOUR, SORRY, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER WAS YOUR, UM, RECOMMENDATION TO SPLIT THE PORCH, OR WAS IT TO MODIFY THE STEPS? IT WAS TO MODIFY THE STEPS, BUT RETAIN A UNIFIED PORCH ACROSS THE FRONT, BUT HAVE THOSE STEPS ON, ON CENTER WITH EACH OF THE DOORS. SO IT RETAINS THAT SENSE OF DUPLEX LAYOUT. COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ IS ADVOCATING, SO ONE OF THE BIG, I MEAN ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE D R C, THE REALLY THE THING THAT'S CHANGING THE CHARACTER HERE MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN MY VIEW, IS THE INCLUSION OF THE RAILS, WHICH IS REQUIRED FROM A HIKE STANDPOINT. THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY CHANGING THE CHARACTER. THE SHAPE OF THE STEPS, UH, SEEM TO BE A LITTLE BIT LESS OF A CONCERN THAT RATHER THAN THE POSITION OF THE STEPS WHEN, WHEN WE DISCUSS THE IDEA OF SPLITTING THE PORCH IN HALF, THAT IT, THAT INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF REALAGE AND THE DENSITY OF THE RAIL ACROSS THE FRONT VERSUS ALLOWING IT TO BRIDGE ACROSS. SO THERE ARE, THERE ARE KIND OF PROS AND CONS ALL, ALL OVER THE, ALL OVER THE PLACE HERE. UM, I, I THINK, I THINK WE CAN, I WOULD HAVE A SUGGESTION THAT WE, WE VOTE ON THE MOTION AS IS IF IT FAILS, WE CAN CONSIDER AN ADDITIONAL D R C TO FIND OUT, FIND A MORE SENSITIVE SOLUTION, UH, THAT MAYBE BALANCES THOSE TWO THINGS. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. UM, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? HERNANDEZ? AYE. FISH? AYE. AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VASQUEZ. NAYYY AREOLA AYE. ERON AYE. CARPENTER? [00:50:01] AYE. RUBE AYE. BOWMAN? AYE. BETTS NAY, HON. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OKAY, THAT SHOULD BRING [16. 21-3074 Address/Description: 1206 W AGARITA AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-173 Applicant: OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION Request: Recommendation for historic landmark designation City Council Dist.: 1] US TO OUR INDIVIDUAL AGENDA. ITEM 16. UM, SO JESSICA'S GOING TO READ THE CASE INTO THE RECORD AND THEN WE, ON A SEPARATE LINE HAVE THE, UM, BOTH THE, UH, INITIAL APPLICANT FOR THIS DESIGNATION REQUEST AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNER. GO AHEAD, JESS. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY, CORY? YES. AWESOME. UM, OKAY. ITEM 16 ON THE AGENDA, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 1 73, 12 0 6 WEST AGARITA AVENUE. THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION REGARDING DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 1206 WEST AGARITA STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 1206 WEST AGITA, NEW CITY BLOCK 1806, BLOCK 21 LOTS, FIVE AND SIX BASED ON FINDINGS A AND B. OKAY. AND WE, YOU'RE THERE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, CORRECT? YES, I AM. RODRIGO IS ON THE LINE. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL PRESENTATION. SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS FOR EITHER THE, UM, INITIAL APPLICANT FOR THIS DESIGNATION STAFF OR FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. UM, WOULD THE APPLICANT PLEASE STATE HIS, UM, CASE FOR THIS EITHER PRO OR CON? OH, I APOLOGIZE. I THOUGHT THAT JESS HAD, UM, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM, FROM THE BEACON HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WHO INITIATED THE ORIGINAL DESIGNATION REQUEST. UM, WE, IT'S JUST STAFF, UM, THEY DID LEAVE COMMENTS, UM, SO WE CAN PROVIDE THOSE NOW. OKAY. IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. OKAY. YES. UM, SO LET ME GO THROUGH ALL THE COMMENTS. THE FIRST ACTUALLY COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS, UM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE BUNGALOW AT 1206 WEST AGTA. THIS BUILDING MEETS CRITERIA THREE FIVE AND 13 AS DETERMINED BY STAFF AT THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THIS HOUSE IS ONE OF TWO CRAFTSMAN STYLE HOMES BUILT FOR THE PROMINENT TASSOS FAMILY IN 1921, BOTH OF WHICH HAVE SURVIVED DESPITE SOME ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS. IT IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF A FRONT TABLE. 1712 OH, OKAY. . IT IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF A FRONT GABLE CRAFTSMAN RESIDENCE FEATURING A SEPARATE GABLE ELEMENT WITH JERKING HEAD OVER A FULL WIDTH FRONT PORCH. THE TASSELS FAMILY WERE ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE GREEK COMMUNITY IN SAN ANTONIO, AS WELL AS PROPRIETORS FOR MANY WELL-KNOWN RESTAURANTS IN THE CITY AND FOUNDERS OF SAINTS SOPHIA CHURCH. THIS HOME REMAINS MUCH OF, RETAINS MUCH OF ITS HISTORIC INTEGRITY, AND TOGETHER WITH OTHER SURVIVING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ALONG WEST IGAR BETWEEN BLANCA ROAD AND THE HIGHWAY REFLECT THE ORIGINAL PLATING FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WE SUPPORT ITS DESIGNATION. NEXT WE HAVE A COUPLE OF VOICEMAILS, I BELIEVE SIX WEST AGARITA SIMA COLVIN ON BEHALF OF THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BOARD. THE BOARD SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION WHETHER THE PROPERTY AT 1206 WEST AGITA BECOMES A HISTORIC LANDMARK OR NOT. THIS STILL SUBJECT TO CURRENT BUILDING CODES. AS SUCH, WE WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE CITY THAT BEACON HILL BECAME A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT IN 2005. AFTER MORE THAN A YEAR'S WORTH OF SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER TIME AND EFFORT, THE DESIGN STANDARDS WERE DEVELOPED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH D S D STAFF AND ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE. THESE, THESE DESIGN STANDARDS WERE REVIEWED AND UPDATED AGAIN IN COLLABORATION WITH D S D AND THROUGH A COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS IN 2017. THESE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE AN OVERLAY TO THE UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE AND REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE DURING THE PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS. AND AGAIN, UPON FINAL INSPECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH BONNA BYLAWS. UNDER ARTICLE THREE OBJECTIVES, ONE OF OUR GOALS IS TO QUOTE, SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT GUIDELINES. OUR ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE IS TASKED WITH DEFENDING THOSE STANDARDS AND TO ASSIST PROPERTY OWNERS TO UNDERSTAND AND IMPLEMENT THEM. OUR N C D FIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S G S D WEBSITE, AS WELL AS THE BAA WEBSITE. A LINK TO THE DESIGN [00:55:01] STANDARDS IS PRINTED IN OUR NEWSLETTER, WHICH IS HAND DELIVERED TO ALL 2200 HOUSEHOLDS BY VOLUNTEERS MONTHLY. SINCE AN N C D IS AN, IS A ZONING OVERLAY, IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD TO ANYONE VERIFYING THE ZONING OF A PROPERTY. IT IS ALSO STATED ON B AD AS A PART OF THE PROPERTY DETAIL. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE INVESTOR DEVELOPER WHO PURCHASED 1206 WEST AGARITA HAS CHOSEN TO IGNORE N C D FIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND DISRESPECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN SO DOING, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THIS REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO, AND LAUREN, IS THERE A SECOND VOICEMAIL? WELL, THERE WERE BOTH FOR THE NEXT ITEM. OKAY. SO COMMISSIONERS, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT THERE'S TWO ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA WITH THE SAME ADDRESS. SO THOSE COMMENTS WERE IN REGARDS TO THE ALTERATIONS TO THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS ITEM 17. SO THAT'S ALL OF THE COMMENTS WE HAVE FOR ITEM 16. OKAY. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE HAVING SOMEBODY ISSUES TODAY. THANK YOU. I DO WANNA CLARIFY, UM, LET'S GO TO THE, UM, MAP AND THE EXHIBITS. WE HAVE TAKEN ACTION ON THIS DESIGNATION QUESTION BEFORE. UM, WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A DIFFERENT AND REVISED BOUNDARY FOR DESIGNATION. UM, IT INCLUDES JUST THE LEGAL LOT ON WHICH THE HISTORIC PROPERTY IS CONTAINED. OKAY. DO WE HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER ON? YES. HEY, RODRIGO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? UH, THE COMMISSION ASKED, UH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION ON THE DESIGNATION. IT IS THE ITEM BEFORE THE FENESTRATION CHANGE REQUEST, SO SPEAK ONLY TO THE DESIGNATION AT THIS TIME. GO AHEAD, RODRIGO. UH, HELLO, COMMISSIONER. UH, MR. RIGO ON THE, THE GRANDSON OF THE OWNER OF 1206 . UM, I WAS JUST, UH, I'M TRYING TO SEE HERE. GIMME A SEC. MY PHONE IS BREAKING UP. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. YES. OH, SORRY. OKAY. YEAH, NO, BASICALLY, UH, WE'RE OPPOSING THE, UH, HISTORIC, UM, DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY. UM, BUT WE'RE FULLY AWARE NOW THAT, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALSO HAS THEIR OWN PROCESSES OF ACCEPTING ANY REVIEWS OR CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY. AND WE WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM. UM, INVOLVING THEM IN THE PROCESS OF 1206 PLUS RESTORATION. UM, WAS JUST AT THIS POINT, WE'VE ALREADY BEEN AT THIS PROCESS FOR SIX MONTHS, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CITY IS SUPER BUSY AND WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO WORK JUST BECAUSE I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE EXTREMELY BUSY AND PROCESSING ALL THESE APPLICATIONS, AND WE JUST WANNA BE ABLE TO RESTORE THE PROPERTY TO IT'S FORMER GLORY. I YES, WE CAN. AND PUT IT ON, UM, ON THE MARKET FOR ANOTHER SAN ANTONIO FAMILY TO COME MOVE INTO. THANK YOU. THANK CHAIR. THIS IS ANNE MARIE. YES, MA'AM. SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, SO WE DESIGNATED THIS LAST YEAR AS A WELL, NO, WE, WE FOUND IT HISTORIC SIGNIFICANT. AND, AND THE ISSUE HERE IS BECAUSE WE WANNA INCLUDE THE FULL LOT INTO BEING HISTORIC SIGNIFICANT. SO PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS AN ACTION TO INCLUDE THE FULL KIND OF GRADING AREA THAT INCLUDES, UH, TWO OR THREE ADDITIONAL LEGAL LOTS THAT DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON IT. IT'S VACANT, IT'S ACTUALLY JUST KIND OF A STORAGE YARD. UM, AND KNOWING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF DESIGNATION, WE WANTED TO PRESENT THIS AS A COMPROMISE, UM, TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF, OF LAND THAT, THAT THEY OWN. THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FUTURE HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW POTENTIALLY. OKAY. SO IT'S THE OTHER ROUND. WE ARE ACTUALLY REMOVING ALL THAT PART OF THAT LAND AND JUST MAKING THE BUILDING ITSELF THE, UM, LANDMARK DESIGNATED, WE ARE LOOKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION FOR A REDUCED BOUNDARY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED CLARIFY I D R C AND I MEAN, AT LAST TIME I THINK IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE HOUSE HAS HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE AND THAT HAS NOT CHANGED. THIS IS COMMISSIONER QUI, UH, FISH. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UH, WHAT IS THE PROCESS AFTER THIS? SHOULD THE COMMISSIONER APPROVE IT? DOES THIS GO BACK TO COUNCIL AS A NEW ITEM? OR DOES IT CARRY FORWARD AS AMENDED? SO AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE A RESOLUTION FROM CITY COUNCIL, WHICH IS BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, INITIATION OF A CHANGE OF ZONING TO MAKE THIS A HISTORIC LANDMARK. UM, SO THE STEPS IN THAT PROCESS ARE H C R C, AND THAT'S TODAY FOLLOWED BY ZONING COMMISSION AND THEN ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION. THANK YOU. YES, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AND I WOULD CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER GROOVE THAT THE, UM, HOUSE DOES HAVE STILL MAINTAINS ITS SIGNIFICANCE [01:00:02] REGARDLESS OF THE, UH, VACANT LOT THAT, UH, YOU'RE ASKING US TO REMOVE FROM THE DESIGNATION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I, I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, IF I MAY. YES, MA'AM. THE, OR COMMENT THE 1200, WHICH IS NEXT DOOR. UM, THAT PROPERTY IS VERY SIMILAR THERE. I MEAN, ALMOST IDENTICAL. UM, YEAH, I THINK THERE WAS A PICTURE IN THE PACKAGE, WHICH I THINK MAY EVEN BE ALSO OF IMPORTANCE IN THIS CASE JUST TO, TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THE BLOCK LOOKS LIKE, RIGHT? SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TWO HOMES THAT ARE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE THAT ARE SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER. SO I DO FIND THAT THE REST OF THE BLOCK, WHICH IS THE REST OF THE LOT, WOULD BE IMPORTANT, UM, AS TO KNOW TO HAVE A FULL HISTORIC BLOCK, KIND OF, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S WHY I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE REMAIN ON, ON WHAT WE APPROVED LAST YEAR. MR. CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. I, I'M NOT, I'M, I'M, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO WHETHER THIS IS A COMMENTS INSIDE OF, UH, QUESTIONS OR PART OF, UH, DISCUSSION AFTER A MOTION. UM, HOWEVER, UM, I, I WOULDN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF, OF THIS, BUT FOR REASONS THAT, UH, I THINK IN, IN OTHER, UH, UH, SITUATIONS THAT I'VE BEEN KIND OF ADAMANT ABOUT, THIS IS A, THIS IS A, A, UH, DESIGNATION THAT COMES BEFORE US THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PLACED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UH, CONSIDERING THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, THAT, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MORE THAN ANYBODY IS VERY AWARE THAT EVERY BUILDING IN THIS AREA MEETS THE SAME CRITERIA. THIS, THIS, UH, PROJECT CAME BEFORE US BECAUSE THERE WAS A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH, AND THE OWNER REMOVED IT FROM THAT, UH, UH, A REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION AND HAS BEEN WORKING AND HAS COMMITTED TO, UM, UH, RESTORING THE HOUSE. UM, BUT I THINK THAT IT COMES BEFORE US AGAIN. WHAT IT, WHAT IT ILLUSTRATES, DEMONSTRATES AND PROVES THIS, THE WEAPONIZING OF THESE, UH, SITUATIONS AND SHOW THIS DOMINO EFFECT THAT, UH, ALL THIS OWNER HAD TO DO WAS PUT IT UP FOR REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION FOR THIS PROCESS TO TAKE OFF. AND, AND ONCE THE OWNER REMOVED IT FOR DEMOLITION, THAT OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REWARDED, NOT, NOT PERSECUTED. AND, AND IT IS MY OPINION THAT IT, IT, IT IS A, A REALLY BAD USE OF THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO TO, TO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THE END ALL CONSEQUENCE OF A SITUATION LIKE THIS REALLY DISCOURAGES PEOPLE FROM GETTING INVOLVED IN PRESERVATION OR PRESERVATION OF THEIR OWN BUILDINGS. BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, AS, AS IT IS THAT THE POWERS THE JURISDICTION OF THE, OF THE OFFICE OF PRESERVATION, THAT IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE REALLY HIGHLIGHTED AND WELL KNOWN, PARTICULARLY IN CASES LIKE THIS, THAT ANY REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION GOES BEFORE THE OFFICE OF PRESERVATION. BUT SURELY THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE'S A GUARANTEE OF CONSEQUENCES THAT, FOR EVEN THINKING ABOUT TEARING A BUILDING DOWN, THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THE SAME CONSEQUENCES AS IF YOU WERE A LANDMARK, UH, DESIGNATED PROPERTY. IT, IT JUST TO ME, IS AN EGREGIOUS USE OF COMMISSION AND CITY POWER. I, I, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE USE OF, OF THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSION AS A WAY TO PERSECUTE PROPERTY OWNERS. I, I, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU, UH, CHAIRMAN FOR ALLOWING ME TO SAY THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THIS IS COMMISSIONER, UH, THIS COMMISSIONER, UH, JUST REAL QUICK, MY COMMENTS WOULD BE BRIEF. I, I SHARE THIS EVIDENCE OF COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. I, I'M SEEING THIS USED MORE AS A WEAPON THAN A TOOL. AND WHAT I'VE ALSO BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT IS WHEN WE HAVE RE DESIGNATED PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS, THEY JUST CONTINUE TO BE BLIGHT AND, AND NOT BE WORKED ON. SO I I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT TOO. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THE SANBORN. DOES THE, THE BOUNDARY THAT IS PROPOSED HERE, UH, REPRESENT THE, UH, THE HISTORIC BOUNDARY AROUND THE HOUSE? I THINK, I CAN'T TELL WHICH LOOKS LIKE SLIDE NUMBER 23, LIKE THE ORIGINAL, LIKE WHERE A PRIVACY FENCE WOULD'VE BEEN. ORIGINAL PROPERTY LINES? YES. YES. YEAH. YEAH. THESE WERE THE LOTS THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY ON. SO WE DREW IT BASED ON THOSE LEGAL LOTS AT SIX AND PART OF FIVE. THANK YOU. [01:05:04] DO I HAVE A MOTION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I MOVE TO, UH, APPROVE. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. I'LL SECOND HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. ROLL CALL PLEASE. FERNANDEZ NAYYY FISH. AYE. AYE. GIBBS. NAYYY. QUEZ. NAY. AREOLA. NAY. SURAN. NAYYY CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP. AYE. BOWMAN, NAY. FETZER. AYE. LIFO AYE THAT MOTION DOES NOT PASS. WE'LL NEED ANOTHER MOTION, UH, UH COM UH, CHAIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO ASK COREY A QUESTION, JUST, JUST, UM, FOR, UM, AN UNDERSTANDING OF PROCESS. DO CO, CORY DO YOU NEED A MOTION OR, THAT'S A BETTER QUESTION FOR ALMA. UM, BUT, BUT IF YOU DON'T GET A MOTION AND, AND NOT ABOUT THIS PARTICULARLY JUST IN TERMS OF PROCESS, RIGHT? IF YOU DON'T GET A MOTION, WHAT HAPPENS? THE ITEM HAS EFFECTIVELY BEEN DENIED 'CAUSE IT WAS NOT APPROVED. SO THEN, SO THEN YOU DON'T NEED A MOTION. YOU DON'T NEED A MOTION. I'M GONNA SAYS WE DON'T. NO. OKAY. OKAY. NEXT ITEM. ITEM [17. 21-3021 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] 17. ITEM WOULD 17 STILL BE HEARD? SO EVEN, SO EARLIER I MENTIONED THE, THE DESIGNATION PROCESS. THIS DOESN'T NECESSARILY END TODAY. UM, SO WE'RE STILL UNDER INTERIM CONTROLS, UH, FOR A C O A FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND SO WE DO REQUEST ACTION FOR THIS ITEM 17. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. RODRIGO, I'M GOING TO READ THE RECOMMENDATION REPORT FOR THE MODIFICATIONS AT THIS TIME. CASE NUMBER 17 WE'RE, I'M TOTALLY FINE PUTTING THE DOOR BACK WHERE IT BELONGS. THAT'S NOT LIKE, THAT'S NOT NO LONGER OUR OBJECTIVE. OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO GET THIS PROPERTY RESTORED AND THAT IT'S NOT A DEAL BREAKER FOR ME OR MY GRANDFATHER ANYMORE. LIKE IF THE HISTORIC SOCIETY OR OBVIOUSLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS THE DOOR AND THE WINDOWS BACK IN THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION, THAT'S COMPLETELY FINE. UNDERSTOOD. AND ARE YOU STILL PURSUING THE REPLACEMENT WITH THE PLY GEM 1100? THAT ONE WOULD ABSOLUTELY, BECAUSE LIKE, UH, LIKE WE HAVE DISCUSSED BEFORE, UM, BEFORE WE GOT DESIGNATED OR AFTER, I GUESS AFTER WE PUT IN FOR THE DEMOLITION REQUEST, WE HAD ALREADY ORDERED THOSE WINDOWS AND THEY WERE ACTUALLY DELIVERED. THEY'RE BEING STOCKED ON SITE NOW. SO I MEAN, NO, 'CAUSE WE COULDN'T KEEP PAYING THE STORAGE FEES FROM THE, FROM THE VENDOR. AND SO WE UNDERSTOOD. LET, LET ME CUT YOU OFF THERE AND, AND READ THE RECOMMENDATION REPORT FOR FOR PROCEDURE, UH, CASE NUMBER 20 21 0 84 FOR 1200 WEST AGARITA. THE PROPERTY IS IN WITH INTERIM CONTROL PERIOD. FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE WHICH IS WITHDRAWN AT THIS TIME. TWO, REPLACE ALL EXISTING ALUMINUM AND VINYL WINDOWS WITH NEW VINYL WINDOWS OF PLY GEM 1100 PRODUCT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REPLACING WITH PLY GM 1100 BASED ON FINDING C REGARDING SASH PROFILE IN DEPTH COLOR FINISH AND NAILING FINS. WINDOWS THAT ADHERE TO THIS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOW REPLACEMENT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY ALUMINUM, ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD OR FULLY WOOD PRODUCTS. AND UM, RODRIGO, IF YOU'D LIKE TO RE REITERATE YOUR POSITION ON THIS SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE WINDOWS, GO AHEAD. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH, NO, UM, PRETTY MUCH, UM, BEFORE WE GOT INTO THE WHOLE, UH, HISTORIC DEFAMATION PROCESS, UH, WE WERE TRYING TO STREAMLINE THE FLIP ON THIS PROPERTY AND MY GRANDFATHER AND I HAD ALREADY ORDERED THESE WINDOWS, UM, TRYING TO MATCH OUR NEIGHBOR IN THE FRONT. THEY HAVE VERY CLEAN LOOK. WE HAVE THE TWO BY ONE RATIOS DOWN AND, UM, WE, I MEAN, IT'S OUR FIRST TIME OBVIOUSLY, UH, RENOVATING IN A HISTORIC AREA OF SAN ANTONIO. SO WHAT WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A FLY GYM, 1500 OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND OUR VENDOR, EVEN THOUGH WE HAD TOLD THEM THAT WE'RE IN THIS AREA, WHICH IS WHY WHAT WE CHOSE, UM, DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY HAD TO BE 1500 PLY GEN, BUT AT THIS MOMENT WE ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO OBVIOUSLY RETURN THE PRODUCT. UM, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SOLD AND WE WERE HAVING TO STORE IT FOR THE LAST FOUR MONTHS AT THE, [01:10:01] AT THE VENDOR'S, UH, WAREHOUSE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO KEEP IT IN THE PROPERTY. 'CAUSE WITHOUT WINDOWS AND WITHOUT DOORS, THE PROP, UH, THE PROPERTY IS EASILY ACCESSED BY LOOTERS AND WE HAVE HAD THAT PROBLEM IN THE PAST. SO WE WOULD IDEALLY HOPE THAT WE CAN AT LEAST GET THE WINDOWS, UM, INSTALLED SO THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE SECURED. MR. CHAIR QUESTION FOR WE YES, SIR. UM, IS THE VERY BEGINNING WHERE YOU SAID THAT, UH, THE, UM, PROJECT IS IN A PERIOD OF, UH, CERTIFICATE OR OR AWAITING CERTIFICATE OF, OF LANDMARK STATUS OR WHAT? I THINK THAT WAS CORY CORY'S. I THINK THAT WAS COREY CO. CORY, CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT, COREY? SO PER THE U D C, WHEN A PROPERTY IS GOING THROUGH THE DESIGNATION PROCESS, UM, THERE ARE INTERIM CONTROLS AND SO IT'S TREATED JUST AS IS, AS IF IT IS ALREADY HISTORIC. UM, I SAY THAT THE INTERIM CONTROLS STILL APPLY EVEN THOUGH THE H C C DID NOT PASS THE DESIGNATION ITEM JUST NOW. AND WHY NOW IT STILL GO, IT STILL GOES TO ZONING COMMISSION. SO IF, AND THAT'S WHERE I'M CONFUSED TOO. YEAH, SO WE, OUR STATE LAW AND OUR, OUR WR UM, AND OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE LAW, THAT'S A RULES INTERPRETATION DECISION. UM, WE NEED TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS AT BOTH COMMISSIONS BECAUSE THE STATE LAW ALLOWS A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE AT EITHER COMMISSION IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL. OKAY. NOW, NOW, UM, THE, UM, THE VOTE THAT WE TOOK AND THEN THE POTENTIAL FOR THERE TO HAVE BEEN A SECOND MOTION, IF THERE WAS A SECOND MOTION AND IT DENIED, DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING? NO, THE REASON I WAS ASKING THAT, BECAUSE TYPICALLY AN ITEM WITH ACQUIRING A SIMPLE MAJORITY, IF A MOTION DOES NOT PASS, UM, WE WILL SEEK A SECOND MOTION. OKAY. UM, BECAUSE OF THE SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT, ALMAS RIGHT. AS KIND OF A PASS OR FAIL SITUATION. AND SO THAT'S WHY SECOND MOTION WAS NOT NEEDED. I, I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU CORY. MR. CHAIR? YES, SIR. UH, WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THAT, UH, I, I, I, I THINK THAT THAT IT'S INCUMBENT ON US TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE, TO, TO THIS SITUATION AND, AND, AND, AND THAT IT'S NOT WITHOUT, THAT HOUSE IS NOT WITHOUT THE HISTORY FOR HOW ALL OF THIS HAS TRANSPIRED. I THINK ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE, THE REAL, UM, TELLING ELEMENTS OF THE ATTITUDE WITHIN ALL OF THIS IS THE YOUNG MAN THAT'S PRESENTING BEFORE US, WHEN HE TOOK THAT ONE MOAT, THAT ONE ITEM THAT'S RECOMMENDED OFF, THAT'S NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE ATTITUDE THAT THAT OWNER HAS HAD WHEN THEY REMOVED IT FROM THE DEMOLITION PROCESS. AND, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THE CONSEQUENCES GET RACKED UP AND HERE IN OTHERS MONETARY CONSEQUENCES. RIGHT. BECAUSE EVEN BEFORE ALL OF THIS PROCESS THAT OCCURRED, THEY ALREADY PURCHASED THE WINDOWS. AND, AND EVEN WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT THE YOUNG MAN MADE ABOUT HIM AND HIS GRANDFATHER NOT KNOWING THAT THEY'RE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. WELL, I MEAN, IT JUST GOES TO SHOW YOU RIGHT? THE REALITY IS THEY'RE NOT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. SO THERE, THERE'S ENOUGH HERE TO, TO WARRANT THAT, THAT WE REALLY WEIGH IN ON MITIGATING THE CONSEQUENCES TO THIS APPLICANT WHO I, I, YOU KNOW, I I THINK IT'S BEING REALLY MISCHARACTERIZED AS AN APPLICANT WHO'S REALLY TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH SOMETHING. THE REALITY IS, I THINK THEY'VE BEEN VERY TRANSPARENT, AND, AND IF THIS IS THE WINDOW THAT THEY COULD HAVE USED AND THAT THEY HAD ALREADY PURCHASED THE WINDOWS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT GENERAL ATTITUDE ABOUT WINDOWS IN THIS COMMISSION, BUT I, I THINK THAT IT'S INCUMBENT ON THIS COMMISSION TO ENABLE, UH, THIS PROPERTY OWNER TO IMPROVE THIS PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT THEY HAD ORIGINALLY INTENDED. AND IF THAT IN THIS CASE, MEANS USING THIS POLY JAM WINDOW, WELL, I MEAN, I, I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT IT'S WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS. SO I, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE, THE, THIS, UH, PROPERTY OWNER TO, AS THEY'VE REMOVED THE RECOMMENDATION, UH, AS, AS THEY'VE ACCEPTED RECOMMENDATION ONE, TO ENABLE THEM TO DO THE GOOD WORK THAT THEY WANNA DO. AND, AND, UH, I WANNA SUPPORT THIS APPLICANT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS COMMISSIONER CARTER. I, I'D LIKE TO, I BELIEVE WE MAKE A COMMENT. I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, CITIZEN COMMENTS. OKAY. AND THEN WE'LL GET TO MORE, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. UH, WE DO, UM, SO PATTY ZION, OH, GO AHEAD AND PLAY THE VOICEMAIL. THIS REGARDING AGENDA ITEM 17 12 0 6 WEST AGARITA SIMA COLVIN, 8 1 7 WEST MAGNOLIA AVENUE. DEAR COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS SIMA COLVIN AND I, I'M THE CO-CHAIR OF THE BEACON HILL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN COMMITTEE. THIS STATEMENT IS ON BEHALF OF THAT COMMITTEE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN REGARDS TO 1206 WEST AGARITA. ON MAY 4TH, 2020, I SENT AN EMAIL TO THE OWNER'S REAL ESTATE AGENT AND DAUGHTER, ANNA ARIA, TO WELCOME THEM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND EXPRESSED OUR INTEREST IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLANS. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS A QUOTE FROM THAT EMAIL QUOTE, AS BEACON HILL IS [01:15:01] A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC BUILDING STANDARDS REQUIRED SO THAT YOU CAN AVOID PROBLEMS LATER. ALONG THOSE LINES, I'VE ATTACHED A COPY OF OUR N C D FIVE STANDARDS. ON MAY 6TH, MS. SARAVIA RESPONDED AND SENT A P D F PRELIMINARY BUILDING PLAN DRAWINGS. SEVERAL VIOLATIONS OF OUR N C D FIVE WERE EVIDENT IN THOSE DRAWINGS, AND AN EMAIL RESPONSE WAS SENT TO MS. SVIA POINTING THOSE OUT. IN HER RESPONSE, SHE STATED, QUOTE, I HAVE ADDED TO THIS COMMUNICATION, BOTH ARCHITECT AND OWNER, AND QUOTE, IN 2016 AND 2017, DURING OUR N C D FIVE REVIEW AND REVISION PROCESS, CHANGES WERE MADE THAT WERE MEANT TO BOTH ADDRESS NEW DEVELOPMENT TRENDS SUCH AS WINDOWS WITH NO SASH OR LIGHT DIVISION, BUT ALSO TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY. ONLY STREET FACING WINDOWS ARE NOW REGULATED. THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECOMES ONLY MORE CYNICAL WHEN THOUGHTFUL PROCESSES AND CONCESSIONS MADE IN THE SPIRIT OF FLEXIBILITY ARE SUBSEQUENTLY IGNORED. AS STATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENT, QUOTE, THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOUND IN THIS PLAN ARE CRAFTED TO PERPETUATE HISTORICAL ARRANGEMENTS OF BUILDINGS AND CELEBRATE AND PREVENT CONCEALMENT OF THE ORIGINAL CHARACTER OF BUILDINGS. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THE DEVELOPER'S REQUEST FOR THIS CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THANK YOU. AND WE HAVE WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY. CONSERVATION SOCIETY CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE AT 1206 WEST AGARITA. 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 THE FRIEND GABLE CRESTON RESIDENCE, FEATURING A SEPARATE GABLE ELEMENT WITH JERK AND HEAD OVER FULL WIDTH PORCH. UM, THE PORCH AND THE BANDED WINDOWS ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PORCH EMPHASIZED THE HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS OF THE GRASPING STYLE, MOVING OR REMOVING WINDOWS AND DOORS ON THE FRONT ELEVATION, ADDING A COLUMN AND CREATING, CREATING A NEW ENTRYWAY, ALL HARM THIS HORIZONTAL EMPHASIS AND MOVES THE HOUSE AWAY FROM THE BUNGALOW STYLE. IF THE OWNERS HAVE A STRONG DESIRE FOR INDOOR WALL SPACE AND NO OPENINGS, ELEMENTS CAN BE FIXED IN PLACE, SUCH AS SETBACK DOOR ON THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE HOUSE, OFTEN NEW INTERIOR LAYOUTS CREATE NEW USES, BUT ORIGINAL CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES SHOULD REMAIN ON THE EXTERIOR, ESPECIALLY THE FRONT SUN. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, UH, MR. EDWARDS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT. THEY HAVE GUIDELINES AND WHETHER, WHETHER THIS HAD WAS HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED INDIVIDUALLY OR NOT, IT'D STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE GUIDELINES, CORRECT? YEAH, THEY HAVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, UM, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SO IT'S EITHER, UM, YOU KNOW, A PERMIT AS PERMITS ARE REVIEWED, EITHER THOSE PERMITS, WHICH INCLUDE EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION, EITHER MEET THE STANDARDS OR DON'T. UM, SO IF THEY DON'T MEET THE STANDARDS, THEN A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, OR THE PERMIT WOULD HAVE TO BE REVISED TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS. RIGHT. AND IN, IN THOSE STANDARDS, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REARRANGE, UH, BUILDING OPENINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. CORRECT. THE OPENINGS THEMSELVES CANNOT BE MODIFIED, UH, TO MUCH EXTENT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. AND IS THERE ANY KIND OF MATERIAL RESTRICTIONS OR DIMENSIONAL RESTRICTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TYPE OF WINDOWS THAT GO INTO, UH, A IF THEY GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL OPENING CONFIGURATIONS, BUT HAVE A NEW WINDOW, IS THERE ANYTHING WITHIN THOSE STANDARDS THAT GIVE GUIDANCE DISCLAIMER? UM, O H P IS NOT THE STAFF THAT NORMALLY ADMINISTERS THE NCDS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS NOT REALLY, UM, THERE IS GUIDANCE THAT WINDOWS SHOULD BE SIMILAR IN TERMS OF OPERATION, BUT THE ME MATERIAL IS ABLE TO CHANGE. BUT THOSE, THOSE STANDARDS ALSO SPEAK TO THINGS LIKE THE CHARACTER BEING RETAINED AND THAT SORT OF THING? CORRECT? YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO GOING TO THE EARLIER COMMENTS THAT THEY HAVE THE, THE RIGHT TO RECONFIGURE THINGS AND TO PUT IN ANYTHING THAT THEY WANT THAT IS NOT CORRECT. THEY, THEY, THEY ARE IN THE CONSERVATION NEIGHBORHOOD. CONSERVATION DISTRICT, THERE ARE SOME CONTROLS OVER WHAT THEY CAN DO TO THIS PROPERTY INDEPENDENT OF WHETHER IT BECOMES IN, UH, UH, DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC CONSTRUCTION, CORRECT? YEAH. I MEAN, TO SUMMARIZE, I BELIEVE THAT STIPULATION ONE BY STAFF OR RECOMMENDATION ONE WOULD MEET THE N C D STANDARD. I THINK THEY WOULD ALREADY BE REQUIRED TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE N C D STIPULATION TWO WOULD NOT REALLY NEED TO BE COMPLIED WITH IN ORDER TO MEET THE N C D STANDARD. IF, IF THAT HELPS. OKAY. IT DOES. THANK YOU. [01:20:02] UH, CORY, I, I THINK FOR THE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF PEOPLE PUBLIC THAT THAT MAY BE LISTENING, THERE WAS A PERIOD IN THE MID NINETIES AROUND THE HOWARD MAYOR HOWARD PEAK PERIOD, MAYOR HOWARD PEAK WAS A PLANNER. AND MUCH OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AT THAT TIME, HIS ENCOURAGEMENT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO BECOME ENGAGED AS A WAY TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION FROM MAXIMIZING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, UH, INCLUDED ENCOURAGING NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS TO BECOME HISTORIC DISTRICTS. RIGHT. WELL, MANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS DID NOT WANT TO BECOME HISTORIC DISTRICTS, SO THEY UNDERSTOOD CONSEQUENCES OR WERE NOT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS OR WHATEVER. SO THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT WAS PROMOTED AS KIND OF A WAY TO ENCOURAGE NEIGHBORHOODS TO FOLLOW IN, IN THOSE PROCESSES. MAYBE, MAYBE ONE DAY AS THEY, UH, UH, UH, UH, DISCOVER, UH, THEIR PARTICIPATION WITH RESPECT TO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, UH, THEY WOULD BECOME CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. BUT, BUT I THINK THAT CLARIFICATION IS THAT CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ARE NOT HISTORIC DISTRICTS, AND THEY'RE WITH A BIG H, NOT LITTLE H AND, AND THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT BOUND BY THE SAME REGULATORY PROCESSES. AND THAT'S CONSEQUENCE OF NOT BEING A HISTORIC DISTRICT. SO THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU'RE A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND IF YOU ARE A ORGANIZED ENTITY, AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU AS AN ORGANIZED ENTITY HAVE NOT MADE YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD A CONSERVATION DISTRICT, THAT IS VERY HARD TO SEE. SELECTING A HOUSE IN AN AREA THAT IS IDENTIFIED AS HISTORIC WITHOUT SELECTING YOUR OWN HOUSE, IS AKIN TO AN OLD IDEA THAT THEY USED TO CALL SPOT ZONING. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S WHAT THAT IS, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT, IT CAN COMPLICATE SITUATIONS AND CAN GET INTO LEGAL ISSUES. THIS SITUATION BORDERS ON THOSE. I DON'T MEAN TO TAKE THE TIME, BUT THE EDUCATION IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE BACKGROUND OF WHAT CONSERVATION DISTRICTS ARE SUPPOSED TO ENCOURAGE, BUT YET NOT BE. OKAY. THAT, THANK YOU. THIS IS COMMISSIONER. THIS IS COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER FISH. YES. I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHEN IT COMES TO THE WINDOWS THAT ARE BEING, UH, THE WINDOWS THAT ARE ON OFFER, I BELIEVE THE N C D, I MEAN, I KNOW THIS IS OUT OUTSIDE OF OUR AREA OF EXPERTISE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT BELIEVE THE N C D DOESN'T ALLOW FOR REDUCTION IN FENESTRATION SIZE. ARE THE WINDOWS PROPOSED THE, THE SAME SIZE AS THE OPENINGS THAT ARE THERE? ARE THEY, ARE THEY REDUCED IN SIZE? UH, PER STAFFS, UH, ASSESSMENT OF THE, OF THE REQUEST, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME SIZE. UH, RODRIGO, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT THOSE WINDOWS WERE CUSTOM ORDERED TO MATCH THE OPENINGS IN THE STRUCTURE? CORRECT? YEAH, WE WERE BASICALLY JUST USING THE SAME HOLES EXCEPT FOR THE ONES ON THE FRONT PORCH. CORRECT. THAT'S THE ONE THAT MY GRANDFATHER WANTED TO, I GUESS REMOVE. SO IF WE, YOU WOULD BE IN, IN ESSENCE, LOSING ONE WINDOW, UH, BECAUSE I THINK THE ORIGINAL PLAN HAD THREE, AND THE WAY MY GRANDFATHER WANTED IT, IT WAS GONNA HAVE TWO ON EACH SIDE OF THE EXACTLY, OR FOUR, I GUESS IT WAS FOUR, SO TWO WINDOWS, BUT THAT'S NO LONGER THE CASE. OKAY. SO, SO HERE, HERE WE ARE, UH, ZONING AND COUNSEL PROBABLY HAVE TO RE-REVIEW. THE REZONING HAS TO REVIEW THE, THE LANDMARK CASE. UH, THE N C D DOESN'T ALLOW THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE FRONT PORCH. SO ULTIMATELY, UH, IF THE N C D UH, GUIDELINES PREVAIL, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT YOU CAN USE THE WINDOWS YOU HAVE ORDERED AND YOU LOSE ACCESS TO THE TAX CREDIT. UM, OR, UH, IF WE'RE UNDER INTERIM CONTROLS, AND WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY ABOUT THE WINDOWS, THE QUESTION IS DO THEY APPLY WITH, UH, THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL? AND THERE'S, I I NEED A, I NEED A LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ON HOW TO PROCEED HERE TODAY, OTHER THAN DELAY, BECAUSE WE'RE IN A LITTLE BIT OF A CATCH. AND I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE UNNECESSARILY DELAYED HERE IN TERMS OF A SOLUTION FOR THE WINDOWS. BUT I KNOW IN THE PAST WHEN WE'VE LOOKED AT HISTORIC STRUCTURES THAT DID NOT HAVE EXI UH, UH, EXISTING HISTORIC WINDOWS, BUT INSTEAD THEY HAD REPLACEMENT WINDOWS, PERHAPS THEY WERE VINYL AND ALUMINUM, THIS COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERED SOME FLEXIBILITY ON THE MATERIALITY OF THE WINDOW, BUT NOT THE SIZE AND THE OPERATION. UM, OTHER THAN THOSE WINDOWS THAT ARE FACING THE STREET. I FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME FLEXIBILITY AFFORDED, UH, IN TERMS [01:25:01] OF MATERIAL REPLACEMENT HERE UNDER THE GUIDELINES. BUT I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. I DON'T KNOW IF THE CHAIRMAN OR VICE CHAIRMAN CAN OFFER SOME SUGGESTIONS HERE. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. JUST A, A QUICK FOLLOW ON TO THAT. SO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE WINDOWS THEY HAVE IN STORAGE, UH, DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE WINDOWS THAT ARE ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. CORRECT? THE, GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL FOUR WINDOWS CONFIGURATION, YOU ONLY HAVE TWO WINDOWS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE, FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, FOR ME. YEAH. SORRY, GO AHEAD. I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS FOR ME. YEAH, WE, IF, UH, AT THE CURRENT MOMENT WE WOULD NEED TO PURCHASE TWO MORE WINDOWS, UH, TO REPLICATE THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT. OKAY. WELL, I THINK COMMISSIONER FISH WAS UPON SOMETHING THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST, UM, WHEN THERE HAVE BEEN HARDSHIP CASES OR CASES WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN, UM, HISTORIC WINDOWS PREVIOUSLY CHANGED OUT WITH NON-COMPLIANT WINDOWS, AND THEN GIVING SOME LENIENCY TO THOSE THAT ARE NOT READILY VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO, AS A, AS A POINT OF COMPROMISE HERE, I WOULD PROPOSE TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER'S A MOTION THAT, UH, THAT ITEM ONE IS DENIED ON THE BASIS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BY THE CONSERVATION NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT AND ITEM TWO, BE PERMITTED WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE FRONT FACING WINDOWS BE RESTORED TO THEIR ORIGINAL SIZE AND CONFIGURATION, UH, BUT USING THE MATERIALS THAT THE OTHER WINDOWS ARE, ARE CALLED FOR C COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I WOULD SECOND THAT. I WOULD SECOND THAT, BUT I WOULD ASK IF YOU COULD CONSIDER REMOVING THE ITEM ONE FROM JUST A SECOND. COMMISSIONER THAT ON JUST A SECOND. YEAH. UM, YOU'VE GOTTA BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR. THERE WERE TWO, UM, INDIVIDUALS, YOU AND MR. FISH WANTING TO SPEAK. I DIDN'T HEAR FROM THE CHAIR WHO HE RECOGNIZED. OKAY. COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. UH, CHAIRMAN, UH, CHAIRMAN, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU, YOU REMOVE ITEM ONE FROM YOUR, UM, UH, MOTION, OR AT LEAST THE WORD DENIED FOR, OR, OR NOT ALLOW, UH, ANY NEGATIVE TERM. BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE OWNER ALREADY, UH, UH, COMMITTED TO, UH, COMPLYING WITH ITEM RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE. SO MAYBE THERE'S A MORE POSITIVE WAY TO, TO, TO, TO ACCEPT, UH, MAYBE IN, IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE MOTION, UH, TO ACCEPT, UH, THE, THE, UH, UH, APPLICANT'S, UH, UM, COM UH, RECO, UH, COMMITMENT TO COMPLY, RIGHT. RATHER THAN COMMISSION'S DENIAL. THANK, THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. WE, UH, COMMISSIONER FISH. THIS IS STAFF. UM, JUST A MOMENT. COMMISSIONER FISH. YEAH. UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE, IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, I, I SUPPORT, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S MOTION. I THINK THIS IS UNDER INTERIM CONTROLS AND THAT THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY HERE, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE STREET FACING WINDOWS MEET THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINE STANDARDS, AND THAT THAT'S A SUM TOTAL OF FOUR WINDOWS. SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING THAT. AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT MAYBE TO, TO THE APPLICANT OR OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UH, THAT THE MOTION HERE, THE MOTION HERE WOULD, WOULD OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE, WOULD MAKE THE PROPERTY OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE FOR HISTORIC TAX CREDITS IF IT WERE TO RECEIVE LANDMARK DESIGNATION. IF IT DOESN'T, STILL HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE N C D, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO OUR GUIDELINES HERE, BUT IT'S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE TAX CREDITS. SO KIND OF AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE, AND I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU, MR. FAM. COMMISSIONER, THIS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN, I'M SORRY, UH, JUST A MOMENT, PLEASE. MR. FA, YOU HAD SOMETHING TO SAY? UH, YES, I BELIEVE THE, UH, THE APPLICANT WITHDREW ITEM ONE. UM, FOR THE RECORD, RODRIGO, WOULD YOU, UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONFIRM THAT YOU WITHDREW ITEM ONE, OR WOULD YOU STILL LIKE THE REQUEST TO GO THROUGH FOR AN OFFICIAL ACTION? NO, WE, I MEAN, WE'RE DRAWING THAT ONE. IT'S GOING BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL AREA. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BOWMAN? YES. UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CONFIRM THAT THE NEW WINDOWS IN THE FRONT WILL BE MATCHING THE, THE ORIGINAL, THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE MATCHING THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS. THEY'RE GONNA BE OF THE NEW WINDOW MATERIAL. IS [01:30:01] THAT CORRECT? IN THIS MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE, TWO ITEMS I NEED TO CLARIFY. YES. ONE, UH, AND I MODIFY MY MOTION AND HOPEFULLY MY SECOND WILL FOLLOW, UM, THAT THE, UH, ITEM ONE WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT, AND THE COMMISSION TAKES NO ACTION ON IT. AND ITEM TWO, THAT THE, UH, REPLACEMENT WINDOWS ARE ACCEPTABLE ON ALL WINDOWS, NOT FACING THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THAT THE FRONT FACING WINDOWS NEED TO BE RESTORED TO THE HISTORIC CONFIGURATION AND MATCH THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES FOR DIMENSIONS. SO THAT'S INDEPENDENT OF, OF ANY KIND MATERIAL CLARIFICATION. AND, AND, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I, I, I ACCEPT THAT CLARIFICATION ON THE LANGUAGE. I DO, DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, SO YOU SECOND THAT MOTION? YES, I SECOND SECOND. THAT MOTION. UH, I THINK WE DO NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON PROCESS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FOR CORY OR FOR WE, BUT, UM, IT, IF IT GOES TO ZONING, ZONING DOES NOT PASS IT. UH, WHAT JURISDICTION REMAINS, UH, IS THE, DOES THE PROPERTY OWNER STILL REMAIN, UH, BOUND BY A DECISION BY THE HISTORIC COMMISSION? THAT, THAT THE, THAT THE, THE PERIOD WHAT WOULD NOT BE A PERIOD THAT AFFIRMS THE EXPECTATION OR WHATEVER? SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THE JURISDICTION? IF THE DESIGNATION CASE IS NOT PASSED THE ZONING COMMISSION WITH A SUPER MAJORITY, THEN THERE IS NOTHING LEFT FOR CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO CONSIDER IT. SO THE DESIGNATION CASE IS DEAD, UM, AND THE PROPERTY WOULD ONLY BE SUBJECT TO THE N C D. SO, SO ANY DECISION THAT WE MAKE RIGHT NOW THEN WOULD NOT BE BINDING ANYMORE, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU, COREY. MUCH APPRECIATED. YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? UH, I DO HAVE ONE MORE. THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN. I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. YES, SIR. UM, WITH THE WINDOWS, UH, AND IN THE, UH, REVISED, UM, MOTION WITH THE LACK, I GUESS THERE OF MATERIAL CLARIFICATION, DOES IT STILL MEET THE, UH, HISTORIC TAX CREDIT REQUIREMENTS? IF IT'S NOT A, UM, A MATCHING OR, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, PRE-SELECTED MATERIAL BY THIS COMMISSION? THE ONLY REQUIREMENT FOR THE TAX INCENTIVE IS THAT THE WORK IS APPROVED. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. MAY I HAVE A, A ROLL CALL PLEASE? UH, FERNANDA HAS ACTUALLY LEFT THE MEETING, SO FISH, AYE, GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ, I'M GONNA PASS. AREOLA. YEAH, ABSTAINING. I, I FEEL LIKE THIS WOULD BE ON OUR PURVIEW. ABSTAIN. UM, CLARIFICATION FOR ALMA. UH, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ MADE THE SECOND. UM, IS HE ABLE TO ABSTAIN IN THE VOTE? I'M, I'M NOT ABSTAINING RIGHT NOW. I'M JUST PASSING. OH, OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. I'M, I'M THINKING REALLY HARD. OKAY. AND AREOLA, I'M COMING BACK TO YOU. ABSTAINING, ABSTAINING, ZOOMER ON AYE, CARPENTER? AYE. RUBE. AYE. BOWMAN? AYE. FETZER. AYE. NA VELASQUEZ, AND I'M GONNA ABSTAIN AS WELL. SO I STILL HAVE MY QUESTION TO ALMA, THEN I, I CAN ABSTAIN IT IF I WANT. I, I, IT'S MY VOTE. THE, THE QUESTION WOULD BE DOES THAT RE RETRACT YOUR SECOND? AND SO I, I GUESS IF NO, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T RETRACT MY SECOND AND, AND I CAN ABSTAIN. LET'S, LET'S HEAR. ABSTAINING IS A VOTE. PLEASE. LET'S HEAR FROM ALMA. UH, YOU CAN, HE CAN SECOND THE MOTION AND HE CAN ABSTAIN. UH, ABSTENTION IS A FORM OF A VOTE, IF YOU WILL. OKAY. IT'S A NON VOTE, REALLY? AND, AND I'LL, I, I THINK IT WAS CHAIRMAN, CHAIRMAN. MOTION PASSES. I THINK, I THINK IT'S WORTH, UH, THE COM COMMISSION KNOWING THAT FIRST AND A SECOND ARE REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSION. THAT'S WHY I HAD THE CON QUESTION EARLIER AS TO WHETHER THE QUESTIONS ARE PERTINENT TO THAT PIECE OR WHEN OUR COMMENTS BECOME DISCUSSION. RIGHT. BUT, SO YOU COULD SECOND, A SECONDING IS A, IS A POWER TO ENGAGE WITHIN THE PROCESS. SO YOU SHOULD ALSO KNOW THAT THEY CAN USE THE SECOND TO BEGIN DISCUSSION. . RIGHT. SO THERE'S MOTION CARRIES. WE CAN MOVE ON TO ITEM 18. GOT IT. UM, IS, UM, IS WHO HAS ITEM 18, [01:35:03] STEPHANIE? ITEM [18. 21-3041 Address/Description: 115 CALLAGHAN AVE HDRC Case No.: 2020-573 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: Adan Ochoa/AO Design, LLC Request: Construction of an addition, exterior modifications, site modifications City Council Dist.: 1] NUMBER 18, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2020 DASH 5 73. ADDRESS, ONE 15 CALLAHAN AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE CONSTRUCT, A REAR INSIDE ADDITION TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 1006 1066 SQUARE FEET AND TWO WIDE IN THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO ACCOMMODATE TWO CARS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED SIDE. ADDITION, THE REQUESTED DRIVEWAY MODIFICATIONS CREATE A FRONT YARD PARKING CONDITION. ITEM ONE. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH J. G STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE H D R C ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT RECONFIGURES THE ADDITION FOOTPRINT TO MINIMIZE ITS IMPACT ON THE FRONT FACADE AND ELIMINATE THE FRONT YARD PARKING CONDITION. AS NOTED IN FINDING C AND D TWO, THAT ALL WINDOWS FEATURE A ONE OVER ONE CONFIGURATION IN TRADITIONAL FILLS AND TRIM DETAILS. THREE. THE APPLICANT UTILIZES WOOD SIDING WITH A PROFILE SIMILAR TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE ON THE ADDITION AND UTILIZES A COMPOSITE SIDING WITH A MAXIMUM REVEAL OF FOUR INCHES WITH A SMOOTH FINISH FROM SKIRTING NO FALL FULL GRAIN IS TO BE USED. COMPOSITE SHINGLES SHOULD ALSO FEATURE A SMOOTH FINISH. AND FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL WINDOW SPECIFICATIONS FOR STAFF REVIEW AND APPROVAL THAT MEET THE STIPULATIONS IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS ITEM TWO STEPS. DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE DRIVEWAY MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED BASED ON FINDING H AND I STAFF FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD MODIFY THEIR PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE A DRIVEWAY THAT EXTENDS TO THE BACK OF THE LOT TO FOLLOW THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE DISTRICT AS NOTED IN FINDING H AND I WILL STATE THAT THE APPLICANT IS NO NO LONGER REQUESTING ITEM TWO REGARDING THE DRIVEWAY MODIFICATIONS, BUT WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE REAR INSIDE ADDITION. AND I HAVE THE APPLICANT AAN OCHOA ON THE LINE. AAN, CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF? HI THERE. UM, ADAM OCHOA OR AAN OCHOA, SORRY. UM, FOR THE, UH, ONE 15 CALLAHAN. YES, SIR. GO AHEAD. AND WE WANNA TALK A LITTLE BIT. YEAH. OKAY. UH, SO, UH, WE CAME TO A C R C A FEW MONTHS AGO. WE HAD GOTTEN, AND I, WE WERE, UH, GIVEN THE CHANCE TO GO TO D R C. WE WENT, UH, ONE TIME, UH, MADE SOME MODIFICATIONS AND WE WENT AHEAD THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. WE CAME BACK THE THIRD TIME, UH, SECOND TIME TO D R C. I MET WITH, UH, MR. VELASQUEZ , AND I APOLOGIZE, FORGOT THE OTHER REFERENCES, THE OTHER THAT WAS THERE THAT DAY AS WELL. UM, AND I TOOK SOME OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL IN COMBINING WITH WHAT WE HAVE HERE NOW, WHICH YOU'RE SEEING, UM, AND HAVING THE STILL AT THE SIDE PUSH BACK A LITTLE, AS WELL AS ADDING THE, UH, WINDOWS. WERE GONNA BE MIMICKING WHAT WE ALREADY, UH, ALREADY EXISTING. UH, THE SIDING. WE DO HAVE TWO OPTIONS ON SIDING ONLY THAT HAS GONE UP CRAZY. UH, WE'VE EITHER DECIDED TO GO WITH A D ONE, UM, 1 0 5 OR THE, UM, PARTY, BACK PARTY SIDING, UH, SMOOTH. UM, THE SKIRTING AS, AS STEPHANIE HAD RECOMMENDED, WE WOULD BE DOING, UH, THAT AS WELL. AND ADDING A SMALL PATHWAY THAT LED FROM THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO THAT, UH, SIDE ENTRANCE. UM, THE RAILINGS AS REQUESTED BY, UH, D R C WOULD BE THAT SIMILAR TO WHAT IS IN FRONT, AS WELL AS THE COLUMNS AS, UM, AS WELL AS THE COLUMNS THAT ARE IN THE FRONT AS ALSO, UM, OTHER THAN THAT, I BELIEVE WE HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE COMMENTS? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. MR. CHAIRMAN. UH, ONE MOMENT. LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE, WE DO HAVE, UM, ONE FROM PATTY ZIONS. CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO HAS REVIEWED THE INITIAL PLANS FOR THE ADDITION TO THE WELL-SERVED, UH, VICTORIAN VOL COTTAGE AT ONE 15 CALLAHAN IN LE BACA. WE OBJECTED TO THESE INITIAL PLANS, BE THOUGHT BECAUSE THE LARGE ADDITION WAS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, WHICH ALTERED THE APPEARANCE OF THE HISTORIC HOUSE AND INCLUDED A FRONT YARD PARKING CONDITION, ALL OF WHICH CONTRADICT THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 15TH INCLUDED A DESIGN THAT PUT THE ENTIRE ADDITION BEHIND THE HISTORIC HOUSE, WHICH IS MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE AGREE WITH THE O H P STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER FISH, I HAVE A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT. UM, WHEN, WHEN YOU PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT THIS TO THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION SHARED STAFF'S CONCERNS ABOUT ITS IMPACT ON THE FRONT FACADE, WE TALKED ABOUT MINIMIZING THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE ADDITION TO THE FRONT FACADE AND POTENTIALLY SHIFTING IT TO THE REAR. WHAT CHANGES HAVE YOU MADE TO REDUCE THE VISUAL IMPACT TO THE ADDITION SINCE, SINCE THE, WE PREVIOUS, PREVIOUSLY HEARD THIS? [01:40:02] WELL, WE WERE GONNA GO WITH THE BACK, BUT WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION WITH THE, UM, WITH THE OWNERS AND THEIR AGE OF THE DISTANCE THAT IT WAS GONNA BE FROM WAY BACK TO WAY FRONT. UH, THE ONLY OTHER THING THEY CHANGES TO WAS GONNA BE LIKE MATERIALS AND THE, UM, UM, WE SHORTENED THE STRUCTURE, I BELIEVE BY , I BELIEVE BY THREE OR FOUR FEET. AND WE ALSO PUSHED IT BACK ABOUT THREE OR FOUR FEET AS WELL. OKAY. SO WE, SO WE HAVE A THREE OR FOUR FOOT REDUCTION IN RIDGE HEIGHT, AND WE HAVE A THREE, THREE FOOT INCREASE IN ITS POSITION FROM THE FRONT PLANE OF THE HOUSE. BUT THE FOOTPRINT IS THE SAME AS YOU PREVI AS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED. UH, THE FOOTPRINT IS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXACT FOOTPRINT WAS ON THE VERY FIRST ONE AS FAR AS SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT WE DID REDUCE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO COME DOWN A LITTLE BIT. WE DIDN'T COME DOWN BY MUCH. WE STILL HAD OTHER ROOMS THAT WE DO. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ? YES, SIR. UH, JUST, JUST, UH, SOME BACKGROUND ON THE DRCS W WE'VE HAD, THERE'S BEEN VIGOROUS CONVERSATION FROM MULTIPLE, UH, COMMISSIONERS ON THIS, UH, PROJECT OVER THE COURSE OF SOME TIME NOW AND, AND A COUPLE OF DRCS. UM, THE, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN VERY, UM, UH, THOUGHTFUL AND, AND KIND OF VIGOROUSLY EN ENGAGED IN, IN COMING UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT, UH, KIND OF MITIGATES A, A SHOTGUN HOUSE, UH, KIND OF PLAN FOR SOME, UM, UH, OWNERS THAT ARE UP IN AGE AND WAS COMMUNICATED ABOUT THE MOBILITY INSIDE THE HOUSE AND ALL OF THAT. UM, FROM A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ITERATIONS, THIS IS THE ONE THAT I THINK WAS MOST, UH, MET MOST CONSENSUS WITH RESPECT TO GOOD DESIGN. UH, I THINK COMMISSIONER CARPENTER WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN MAYBE ONE OF THE DRCS. I THINK WE HAD TWO DRCS ON THIS. SO, UM, WITHOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGING, UM, UM, I THINK, UH, KIND OF THE, THE MYRIAD OF POSSIBILITIES, I JUST WANT WANT TO KIND OF, KIND, KIND OF MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, UH, COMMUNICATE TO, TO THE, UH, COMMISSION IS MY, MY BEST RECOLLECTION THAT THIS IS, UH, OF, OF THE DESIGN ITERATIONS, THE, THE, THE ONE THAT IS, UH, WE, WE KIND OF GENERALLY FOUND MOST RESPECTFUL TO THE, I GUESS TO THE COMMENTS THAT THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY JUST MADE, UH, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND, AND HOW, UH, IT, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IS MOST LIKELY THE WAY THAT HAD THE HOUSE EVOLVED, IT WOULD'VE EVOLVED IN THIS, IN THIS MANNER. UH, I THINK ONE QUESTION THAT HAD COME UP A FEW TIMES WAS ABOUT ACCESS TO THE REAR. I THINK THEY HAD ACCESS TO THE REAR THROUGH AN ALLEY, IF I, IF I RECALL. UM, BUT, UH, THAT THERE'S, THERE, THERE'S SOME, UM, UH, EFFORT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. BUT, UH, THIS IS AFTER MUCH PROCESS ALREADY. UM, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. UM, I WAS ALSO PRESENT IN A, AT A D R C AND I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. WE HAD LONG DISCUSSION, REALLY, REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT AND REALLY VIEWING THE PROPERTY ALSO FROM THE GOOGLE EARTH AND ALL ANGLES. AND, UM, IT'S A DIFFICULT PROPERTY AND, AND THE ASPECT THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT I, I FEEL LIKE THERE HAS BEEN ENOUGH DRCS TO REALLY DISCUSS THAT THIS IS THE, ACTUALLY THE ONLY OPTION. UM, THEY'RE COMPLIANT WITH ALL THE MATERIALS AND HOW MAKING IT LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S PART OF THE HOME AS IT WAS WITH THE DESIGN. UM, AND I ALSO FEEL LIKE, I THINK WE HAD ALSO, IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE PICTURES, IT'S REALLY LAYING BACK. YEAH. SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE AN ADDITION IN THE BACK OF THE LOT. AND, AND I THINK, YEAH, IT IS ALSO WORTH CLARIFYING THAT THE, THEIR ACCESS IS FROM THE ALLEY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I, I HAVE ONE, UH, QUESTION OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE IN THE D R C, WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT USING SIMPLER DETAILING ON THE NEW PORCH, SUCH AS, INSTEAD OF THE, UH, TURNED, UH, RAILING MEMBERS, THE BALLISTERS GOING WITH POSSIBLY JUST A SQUARE BALLER WITH SQUARE COLUMNS RATHER THAN, UH, MATCHING THE HISTORIC? EXACTLY. IN WHICH CASE THE, THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE TWO [01:45:01] HISTORIC AND ADDITION, UH, GETS A LITTLE MUDDLED. IS THAT DISCUSSED? UH, MR. CHAIR, I, I, I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY PRESENTED, UM, AND IT'S, I THINK IT'S THE MAY, MAYBE THE TWO SCHOOLS, RIGHT? IS I, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE OWNER WAS LOOKING AT A SOLUTION OR AT LEAST INTERPRETING RIGHT, THAT THE SOLUTION WOULD BE THAT THE HOUSE WAS ALWAYS THE WAY THAT IT IS IN THE DRAWING, RIGHT? THAT, THAT THERE ISN'T A SIGN OF WHEN THINGS WOULD CHANGE. HOWEVER, I, I, I ALSO UNDERSTAND, UH, WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS A DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO, UH, UH, HAVE YOU THOUGHT OF THIS? I, I, IT, IT WAS MORE, UH, KIND OF DIED AT THE, AT THE PLACE OF THE APPLICANT AND PRESENTING IT IN A WAY WHERE IT'S THE HOUSE AS IT WAS. AND I THINK THAT SOME DIALOGUE, UH, RELATIVE TO THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE TURNED, UH, BARRISTERS, BUT THE, BUT THE ROOT, THE, THE, UH, WHAT DO YOU CALL THEM THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CALL THAT, UH, THAT, THAT SECTION OF THE SHAKE SHAKE SHINGLES ABOVE MM-HMM. THE GABLE, RIGHT? THAT, THAT, THAT'S WHERE THAT DIALOGUE MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED ABOUT A DIFFERENT MATERIAL THAT WAS IN THAT SPACE, BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE, UM, THE, UH, THE SPINDLES. OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, WE DID TALK ABOUT ALIGNING THE COLUMNS, IF I MAY SPEAK AGAIN, MR. CHAIR? YES, MA'AM. AND, AND IT IS TRUE, WE'VE NEVER TALKED ABOUT THE MATERIALITY OF THE PORCH RAILING. UM, AND, AND I THINK THAT IT IS MORE THE INTENT TO, TO MATCH AS A CONTINUATION FROM WHAT'S IN THE FRONT AND GOING BACK. UM, BUT WE DID TALK ABOUT ALIGNING THE COLUMNS MORE SO THAT THERE IS MORE, LESS VISIBILITY OF AMOUNT OF COLUMNS AS YOU SEE RIGHT HERE. AND I DON'T THINK THE APPLICANT HAS CHANGED THAT THERE'S FOUR COLUMNS, BUT REALLY THERE'S ONLY, UH, THREE, THERE'S LIKE THIS, THE NUMBER THAT THE ONE ON THE SIDE PORCH KIND OF ALREADY HAS TWO EXTENSIONS OUT THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING. SO THAT HIDES SOME OF THE, YOU CAN SAY SOME OF THE, UM, EXTENSIONS. SO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ALIGNING THE COLUMNS, SO THAT MAY MORE ONLY ONE WOULD, ONE SECTION, WHICH IS THE RIGHT OF THE NEW STAIRS, WOULD BE VISIBLE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND I GUESS THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE WANTED TO MATCH, BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE LIKE THE FRONT, THE LITTLE SIDE, AND THEN JUST THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT. YEAH, RIGHT THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, SO THE, ACTUALLY, THE, THE RAILING ON THE LEFT SIDE WOULD PROBABLY BE ALIGNED WITH THAT SIDE PORCH. UM, I DID HAVE THE CONCERN ABOUT THE FRONT PARKING, SO THAT I KNOW THAT'S A SECOND ITEM ON THE STIPULATIONS. AND I'LL PROBABLY AGREE WITH STAFF ON THAT ONE. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN THAT REQUEST. SO YEAH, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. OKAY. THIS IS STAFF. I JUST WANNA CLARIFY QUICK. SO THE, THE APPLICANT AND THE ORIGINAL REQUEST EXTENDED TO LIKE WIDEN THE DRIVEWAY, BUT THE DRIVEWAY THAT IS IN THE, THE DRAWINGS IS THE ONE THAT'S EXISTING. SO IF THE ADDITION IS BUILT TO THE SIDE AS IT'S PROPOSED HERE, IT'S GONNA CREATE THAT FRONT YARD PARKING CONDITION NO MATTER WHAT, OR IS THERE NOT TALKS ABOUT FENCING? DID WE NOT TALK ABOUT SOME KIND OF, UM, I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN REMIND ME. I FEEL LIKE WE DISCUSSED HOW TO MEDICATE THAT. I, I SPOKE ABOUT A FENCING IN, IN FRONT OF IT, BUT THE COMMENT WAS, THIS IS SO BEAUTIFUL, WHY WOULD YOU WANNA HIDE IT WITH A FENCE? SO THE FENCE ONLY STAYED TO THE SIDE. AND THEN THE DRAWING, UM, IN THE IMAGE, THIRD, UH, 23, I SHOWED THE FENCE TO THE RIGHT OF THE HOUSE. SO THERE IS NO FENCE IN, IN FRONT OF IT ANY ANYMORE. I'VE TAKEN THAT OUT. SO IT IS AN EXISTING PARKING DRIVE NOW THAT IT'S NOT BEING WIDENED OR NOT BEING LENGTHENED, CORRECT? CORRECT. IT'S NOT BEING WIDE IN ORDER ANYTHING? NO, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A PATH CREATED FROM THE DRIVEWAY TO THE NEW EXTENSION. YES. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT THAT IS CORRECT. UM, I BELIEVE ON, UM, 19 IT'S SHOWN. YEAH, I WOULD PROBABLY NOT AGREE WITH THAT. UM, BECAUSE IT DOES CREATE MORE, UM, AS OF NOW YOU ARE, YOU'RE BARELY USING THE DRIVEWAY, AND IF YOU WERE TO USE IT, IT'S TO ENTER THROUGH THAT SIDE ENTRANCE, WHICH YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW, [01:50:02] OR BASICALLY, ACTUALLY YOU DON'T USE IT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS FROM THE ALLEY. UH, THERE CAN BE, UH, THERE'S, YEAH, YOU CAN COME IN THROUGH THE ALLEY AS WELL IF YOU NEED TO DO PARKING, IF YOU WANT TO PARK IN THE BACK OR GET TO THE BACK. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WILL YOU BE USING THAT DRIVEWAY, LIKE AS A MAIN ENTRANCE? OH, UM, I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW THE CLIENT WILL BE USING THAT. AS, AS FAR AS NOW HE IS USING THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE THAT HE HAS TO PARK, UH, COMING IN THROUGH THE BACK ALLEY. THE BACK ALLEY DOES IT, IS YOU ARE ABLE TO GET A VEHICLE, UH, FROM THE ALLEY INTO THE YARD. BUT UNFORTUNATELY ALSO BECAUSE OF IF IT RAINS REALLY BAD, THEN MORE THAN LIKELY HE'S GONNA USE THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE IT THERE, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, WE GET A MOTION. MR. CHAIR, I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. YES, MA'AM. THE SAME ITEM. SORRY. UM, CAN STAFF PULL UP A PICTURE? IT'S ONE OF THE FIRST PICTURES. UM, I MEAN, ALSO LOOKING AT THE ATION OF THE HOME, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANNA ENTER TO A BEDROOM. YEAH, THIS IS, SORRY. UM, I THINK ONE PICTURE BEFORE IT'S REALLY SHOWING, UM, I GUESS WHAT WE HAD REALLY REALIZED WHEN WE WERE IN D R C WAS HOW MUCH IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY THIS WILL BE MR. CHAIR. I'M READY FOR MOTION. YES, MA'AM. THE MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM ONE WITH STAFF STIPULATION. SECOND. YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MR. CHAIRMAN? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. YES, SIR. UM, SO I, I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS I HAD, UH, WHEN WE, WHEN WE SAW THIS PREVIOUSLY ABOUT THE POSITION OF THE MASS. I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE CONCERN, UH, OF THE MASS OF THE ADDITION, UH, IN THE WAY THAT IT REALLY CHANGES THE PERCEPTION AND THE CHARACTER FROM THE STREET. I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE A LOT OF PIECES AT PLAY HERE, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK FROM THE D R C, UH, BUT I, I CAN'T SUPPORT THE MOTION AS IT'S PRESENTED. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER CARPENTER HERE? YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. UM, I ALSO WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT. UM, I MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS DURING THE FIRST D R C. IT SEEMS LIKE THOSE WERE, UM, WE'RE DIS OR, OR, OR NOT ACTED UPON. UM, I HAVE SOME REAL CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS ADDITION OCCUPIES BASICALLY THE MID PORTION OF THE SITE RATHER THAN WHERE NATURALLY WOULD WANNA GO BACK BEHIND THE HISTORIC, UH, STRUCTURE AND THEN SEPARATE IN SOME WAY. UH, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THE TRAVEL DISTANCES WOULD BE ANY GREATER FOR THE INTERIOR, UH, FOR, UH, EL THE ELDERLY OCCUPANTS. SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU, MS. CHAIR. COMMISSIONER VEZ? YES, SIR. YES, SIR. UM, I, I, I WANNA THANK THE APPLICANT FOR, UH, WORKING THROUGH, UH, SO MANY DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT OPTIONS. UM, AND, AND BEING VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD ABOUT, ABOUT HIS, UH, YOU KNOW, HIS, HIS, UM, HIS THOUGHT PROCESSES WITH US. I, I'D LIKE TO JUST KIND OF, UH, ASK THE COMMISSION WHEN CONSIDERING A PROJECT LIKE THIS. 'CAUSE THERE, THERE ARE OTHERS IS THERE'S THIS KIND OF RULE OF THUMB OF, OF, OF THESE SOLUTIONS THAT CREATE THESE LONG LINEAR HOUSES THAT IF YOU SAT DOWN AND YOU DESIGNED A HOUSE, YOU WOULD NEVER DESIGN A HOUSE LIKE THAT. AND, AND, AND SOMEHOW THE INTERPRETATION OF THE GUIDELINE HAS SET THESE KIND OF RULES THAT, UH, I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE ARE RULES. UM, BUT, UM, THERE, IN SO MANY CASES, THERE'S NO COMMON SENSE TO A HOUSE THAT'S SAY 50 FEET LONG TURNING INTO RATHER THAN AN L-SHAPED HOUSE, TURNING INTO A HUNDRED FOOT LONG HOUSE. SO I, I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE COMMISSIONERS TO, TO REALLY CONSIDER, UH, UH, NEW PRECEDENT AND, AND, AND TO, TO APPEAL TO THE DESIGN SENSIBILITIES AT SOME POINT. I DO KNOW THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO MICROMANAGE EVERY DECISION OF A, OF A, OF AN APPLICANT'S DESIGN [01:55:01] PROCESS. THAT'S NOT OUR JOB. SO IT, IT IS HARD TO GET SOMEBODY TO, TO, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE SAYING WHEN IT'S REALLY KIND OF IN OUR HEADS. AND I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT OUR JOB IS. BUT, UH, I, I DO WANNA, UH, JUST KIND OF, UH, BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THIS APPLICANT HAS, HAS IN GOOD FAITH, UH, WORKED REAL HARD TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY REALLY SHOULDN'T BE OUR SOLUTION. IT SHOULD BE THE APPLICANT'S SOLUTION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CAN I MAKE A OBLIGATION? ONE MORE? YES, MS. GROOVE. AND, UM, AND THAT IS THAT, UM, WE DID REVIEW IN THE D R C, THE OPTIONS THAT WERE ASKED IN THE FIRST D R C. HE ACTUALLY PRESENTED, THE ARCHITECT, I THINK PRESENTED ABOUT FOUR OPTIONS. UM, I, WE HAVE BEFORE, AND THIS COMMISSION APPROVED SOMETHING SIMILAR WHERE IT'S, I MEAN, THERE IS A DIS THERE'S A, I DON'T WANNA SAY DISABILITY, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? UM, THERE IS A, AN A AN ISSUE HERE OF A, WELL, WELL, THE, THE OWNER'S HOUSE, HOW THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY CAN MOBIL MOBILITY ISSUE YOU CAN SAY IN THE HOME. UM, AND I'VE REALLY, I I FEEL LIKE THE ARCHITECT, I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE THE ARCHITECT HAS REALLY PRESENTED A SOLUTION THAT WILL ACTUALLY MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT WAS PART OF THE HOME ORIGINALLY. AND I THINK THAT IT'S SO EXTENDED BACK AND I'VE SEEN FINAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN WELL DONE AND COMPLETED THAT ACTUALLY IT DOES LOOK GOOD. AND I DO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ, IF YOU LOOK IN OUR, IN OUR PACKAGE, THE OTHER OPTIONS FOR MAKING THIS HOUSE VERY, VERY LONG AND NARROW. OKAY. THANK YOU. DID, UH, MY APOLOGIES. UH, STEPHANIE, I HAD SENT, UM, OVER AN ADDRESS. IS THAT POSSIBLE TO BRING THAT UP? IT WAS A PROJECT THAT WAS DONE A FEW YEARS AGO THAT WAS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THIS ONE AS WELL. UM, IT WAS AT, UH, 6 3 1 EAST GUNTER STREET. YES, WE DO HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN OUR PACKET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, ANY OTHER, MR. CHAIRMAN? COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER? YES. YES, SIR. MR. LA, UM, I'M READING, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE AND I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO FOLLOW. SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION. CAN WE BRING IT UP? 6 3 1 ? YEAH. COMMISSIONER, IT'S A DIFFERENT ADDRESS. UM, IT'S NOT THE ONE IN THE PACKET. I THINK LAUREN MIGHT BRING IT UP. WELL, MR. CHAIR, I ACTUALLY THEN MY MOTION, I THINK I'M GONNA REDRAW MY MOTION. I'M NOT GONNA INCLUDE STIPULATION ONE. YES, WE DO HAVE THAT INFORMATION. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION? I COULD REFORMULATE MY MOTION. WERE WE ABLE TO BRING UP 6 3 1? YEAH, IT'S ON THE SCREEN. OKAY. I'M SORRY. IT DIDN'T GO ON MY SIDE. UM, OH, MR. CHAIR, UH, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR BRINGING, YOU KNOW, THIS PROJECT TO OUR ATTENTION. UH, I, I, I'M, I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE THAT IT'S AN INTELLECTUAL, UM, PROBLEM. I THINK IT'S A PROBLEM THAT REQUIRES A RESPONSE FROM OUR SENSIBILITIES AND, AND IT'S AN EXPERIENTIAL, UM, UH, CRITERIA. I GUESS YOU DRIVE BY OR YOU'RE WALKING BY THIS, THIS PICTURE CAN, CAN BEG THE QUESTION, RIGHT? WE TAKE OUR CLASS OR WALK IN FRONT OF THIS BUILDING AND SAY, CLASS, HOW DOES THIS SOLUTION DESTROY THE INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF THE, OF THE LANDSCAPE? AND ONE ANSWER CAN BE, WELL, YOU USED TO BE ABLE TO SEE TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LOT, BUT NOW YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOUR VISION TRUNCATES AT THIS POINT. NOW YOU GO AND WRITE AN ESSAY AND THERE'S GONNA BE A HUNDRED DIFFERENT, OR CLASSROOM FULL OF DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS. AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS THAT MANY OF THOSE ESSAYS ARE GONNA BE GOOD ESSAYS AND THEY'RE GONNA WRITE GOOD, UM, UH, REFLECTIONS. BUT, BUT WHEN, WHEN, WHEN ONE OF THE ESSAYS OR WHEN ONE OF THE REFLECTIONS, UH, LIMITS THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE CITIZENS OR THE OPPORTUNITY, THE APPLICANTS TO PURSUE THEIR DREAMS ON THEIR, ON THEIR, ON THEIR PROPERTY, WHEN IN REALITY THEY'RE NOT DESTROYING ANYTHING, THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE, THE, THE EXPERIENTIAL LANDSCAPE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT CHANGING IT. I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE CRITERIA THAT, [02:00:02] THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT. YES, IT CHANGES THE PRECEDENT, BUT IT ENABLES, AND IT BRINGS US TO, TO, TO A TO A REALISTIC PLACE. BECAUSE AT, AT THE LIFE OF THIS HOUSE, AT ANY POINT THAT SOMEBODY DECIDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION, THEY WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THAT ADDITION UP UNTIL THE POINT THAT IT BECOMES, UH, A LANDMARK DESIGNATION. IN WHICH CASE, IF THE APPLICANT IS WORKING WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF, OF THE KIT KIT OF PARTS RIGHT THERE, THERE JUST DOES NOT SEEM TO BE ANY RATIONAL REASON TO STOP A PROJECT FROM OCCURRING. THAT IS, THAT IS MEETING A, A PARTICULAR CRITERIA. AND, AND IN A WAY, THIS, THIS, THIS, A LITTLE HOUSE LIKE THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THAT, THAN THAT BIG THREE STORY, FOUR STORY BUILDING THAT WE JUST SAW A LITTLE WHILE AGO THAT COMPLETELY CHANGES THE LANDSCAPE OF THE, OF THAT LANDMARK ENVIRONMENT. RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER GROOVE, YOU WERE GONNA MAKE A MOTION? YES. IT'S MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM ONE WITH STIPULATION TWO, THREE, AND FOUR. SO WE HAVE A NEW MOTION. DO WE HAVE THIS NEW SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH A GIBBS NAY QUEZ AYE. AREOLA AYE. A CARPENTER NAY. RU AYE. BOWMAN, I'M GONNA GO WITH NAY THAT SIR. NAYYY LA NAY. A MOTION FAILS. MOTION FAILS. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION? UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I, YES, COMMISSIONER BOWMAN, UH, THE, THE WAY THAT THIS IS PRESENTED, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH IT IT'S SIMILAR TO THAT, THAT OTHER, THAT OTHER PROPERTY, I FEEL LIKE IT, IT ONCE, YOU KNOW, AS, AS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ POINTS OUT, LIKE ONCE THIS BECOMES DESIGNATED, IT, IT DOES HAVE CRITERIA, IT DOES HAVE RESTRICTIONS AND THOSE DOCUMENTATION, ALL OF THAT IS DOCUMENTED AND IS VERY CLEAR. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S, UM, SOMETHING THAT IS A DESIGN SENSIBILITY PROJECTED BY THIS COMMISSION. I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S RULES THAT ARE PRETTY BLACK AND WHITE AND THAT'S WHY, UM, STAFF IS ABLE TO, UH, MAKE THESE, UH, OBSERVATIONS AS, AS SUCCINCTLY AS AS THEY ARE, UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE RULE-BASED. AND SO I THINK THAT WE JUST HAVE TO GO BACK TO, UM, GO BACK TO THOSE RULES AND, AND COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT MEETS THOSE, THOSE, UH, STIPULATIONS. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. UM, AND I THINK THAT ITEM ONE IS A VERY BIG PART OF THAT UP. BUT HOW IS IT THAT THE GUNTHER PROJECT WAS APPROVED? AND THIS ONE IS NOT, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME. IT'S 73 FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT STREET AND HOURS IS 75 FEET. I MEAN, IT IS IT BECAUSE THE PERSON THAT LIVES THERE HAS MORE AUTHORITY THAN WE DO? WELL, CAN WE, THAT'S CHAIRMAN FITZER. I, I JUST YES SIR. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, COMMISSIONER BOWMAN, THERE IS NO GUIDELINE THAT SAYS THAT A HOUSE OR BUILDING IS ONLY APPROVABLE IN A LINEAR FASHION FRONT TO BACK SHOTGUN. THERE IS NO GUIDELINE THAT SAYS THAT. NO. SO MY COMMENTS, MY COMMENTS ARE MEANT TO BE WITH, WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF OUR JURISDICTION, TO USE OUR SENSIBILITIES TO DETERMINE IN WHAT IS TO THE DETRIMENT OR THAT DISASSEMBLES THE CHARACTER OF, OR, AND I, MY MY COMMENT, COMMISSIONER BOWMAN IS, IS REALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN YOUR COMMENT. THEY'RE THE SAME COMMENT. IT'S JUST TWO DIFFERENT MINDS, RIGHT? YOU THINK DIFFERENTLY THAN I THINK, AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM BECAUSE GOOD SOLUTIONS ARE EVERYWHERE, RIGHT? BUT WHEN, WHEN OUR, WHEN, WHEN A, WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES BEFORE D R C AND A AND, AND THEN IT COMES BEFORE THE COMMISSION SO MANY TIMES AND, AND PRESENTS A GOOD SOLUTION, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT BRING OTHER SOLUTIONS FOR US. AND THAT'S WHY I MENTIONED THAT FOUR STORY BUILDING THAT WE JUST APPROVED A SECOND AGO. THEY REALLY HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES WHAT, WHAT IS THE CRITERIA THAT, THAT WE'RE USING? UM, [02:05:01] SO I I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GIVE ANYBODY THE IMPRESSION THAT IF THEY'RE GONNA COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THAT THEIR OWN SOLUTION THAT THEY HAVE IS TO GO STRAIGHT BACK BECAUSE THE GUIDELINES DO NOT ALLOW US TO SEE IT PROTRUDING IN ANY DIRECTION BEYOND THE EXISTING. THAT'S NOT A GUIDELINE. MS, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. MR. FISH. SO I DON'T THINK THE GUIDELINES SAY THAT THEY SUGGEST THAT THE ADDITION SHOULDN'T DISTRACT FROM, OR TAKE AWAY FROM, OR OVERWHELM THE, THE, THE STRUCTURE FROM, PARTICULARLY FROM THE FRONT. AND THE EXAMPLE THAT WE SAW ON THE SCREEN A SECOND AGO DID AT LEAST A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT MIGHT BE GOOD SOLUTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL HERE. ONE THAT A SIDE YARD FENCE BEGIN TO SCREEN THE REAR ADDITION THAT IS EXTENDING OUT TO THE SIDE TWO, THE RIDGE HEIGHT IS LOWER AND THE FOOTPRINT THAT MEANS THE, THE, THE DEPTH OF THAT ADDITION IS LOWER. THIS ISN'T, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PUT THAT BACK ON THE SCREEN, BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME SOLUTIONS THAT CAN GET THIS PROJECT THERE AND DEAL WITH STIPULATION ONE THAT IS REQUESTING THAT THE, THE, THE FOOT FOOT BE ADJUSTED TO MINIMIZE ITS IMPACT TO THE FRONT FACADE AND ELIMINATE OF FRONT YARD PARKING. SO I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE. I WOULD AGREE 100%. AND WE ALSO SEE OTHER THINGS, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE STEPPING DOWN OF THE ROOF AT THOSE JOINT LOCATIONS, THINGS THAT, THAT CAUSE THAT ADDITION TO APPEAR SEPARATE FROM THE MAIN HOUSE. I MEAN THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE THAT AREN'T BEING DONE IN THIS DESIGN. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S AN, IT'S A FULL SALE NO TO A SIDE ADDITION. I'M, I'M SORRY TO JUMP IN THERE, COMMISSIONER DISH, I APOLOGIZE. NO WORRIES, THANKS. I MEAN, I, I THINK WE SAID THIS IN THE ORIGINAL HEARING THAT I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROHIBITION AGAINST SOME INCIDENT ASIDE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE CONFIGURATION OF THIS STRUCTURE ON THIS LOT. IT'S REALLY THE WAY IT'S BEING PERCEIVED, UH, FROM THE STREET AND THE WAY IT'S INTERACTING WITH THE, THE FRONT ELEVATION AND THAT, THAT CONCLUDES MY REMARKS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET SOMEWHERE SPECIFIC TODAY WITH THIS MR. CHAIR. I'LL DO ANOTHER MOTION. YES, MS GROUP. AND, AND I THINK THAT, I MEAN IT'S BASICALLY MOVING INTO D R C I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE HERE IS THE FRONT PARKING. AND I THINK THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE GUNTER PROPERTY IS THAT THERE IS A CREATION, IT CREATES A FRONT YARD PARKING. SO, UM, I'LL MOVE THIS TO D TO ANOTHER D R C. WASN'T THAT PART RE DO WE HAVE A SECOND? STEPHANIE, CAN YOU CLARIFY IT WASN'T THAT COMPONENT OF THE REQUEST DRAWN? NO, WHAT I MEAN IS BUILDING THAT SIDE ADDITION CREATES FRONT YARD PARKING BECAUSE WITH THE, THE EXISTING DRIVER IS ALREADY THERE. YEAH. AND HER MOTION DOESN'T REALLY HIGHLIGHT THAT. UH, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. SO WE'D HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND TO SEND THIS TO D R C. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH? AYE. AYE GIBBS? AYE VELAZQUEZ? UM, WE MIGHT HAVE LOST HIM. HE HAD A MR. VELAZQUEZ, ARE YOU THERE? I THINK HE'S GOT A CONNECTION ISSUE, SO, SO OKAY, I'LL COME BACK TO YOU. OLA. AYE ZOOMER ON AYE CARPENTER? AYE RUB? AYE BOWMAN? AYE. THATER? AYE UNE AYE. VELAZQUEZ. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. AND THEN Y'ALL ARE ASKING ME TO GO G R C FOR IT THIRD TIME, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND TO GO AHEAD AND PROPOSE WHAT I HAD ORIGINALLY HAD, UH, SO THAT WAY I CAN JUST KNOW WHAT I HAVE TO TELL MY CLIENT, SO, OKAY. THANK YOU. IT'S NOT FAIR HOUSE ITEM 19. JESS, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I'M SO SORRY. HOLD ON ONE MOMENT FOR ME PLEASE. COREY, I'M SORRY, I MR. CHAIR? YES SIR. OR CORY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN HEAR YOU. I'M SORRY. I, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT MY, I LOST CONNECTIVITY. YEAH. AND I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, TO RECORD THAT I'M IN SUPPORT OF THAT MOTION, RIGHT? AND, AND I, I ALSO WANT TO, TO TELL COMMISSIONER FISH THAT I THINK THAT HIS COMMENTS ARE VERY THOUGHTFUL, WONDERFUL COMMENTS THAT, THANK YOU. YOU [02:10:08] AGENDA ITEM 19. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT? I'M TRYING TO REACH THE APPLICANT RIGHT NOW. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY. OR ACTUALLY THE APPLICANT IS THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION TO BE THE PROPERTY OWNER. IT'S, IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER. YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST WHILE WE HAVE TIME CLARIFICATION, IS THE PROPERTY OWNER IS APPLYING FOR, FOR THIS? NO. UM, WELL I'M GONNA RELY ON JESS HERE. UM, CITY STAFF IS THE APPLICANT, BUT I, I AM UNSURE OF WHAT IS PROMPTING THE, THE REQUEST. I, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO MOVE ON TO THE NE NEXT CASE AND COME BACK TO THIS ONE? SURE CAN. UM, ITEM 20, WE, ARE YOU THERE WITH THE APPLICANT? EIGHT 15 EQUIPMENT? WE, COREY, CAN YOU MAYBE MR. CHAIR, WE CAN TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. UH, I'M TRYING TO, LET'S TAKE A BREAK IF IT'S OKAY WITH US, SIR. WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. FIVE, SIX. WE HAVE, YOU HAVE SIX, SIX COMMISSIONS? [19. 21-3103 Address/Description: 222 BROOKS ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-165 Applicant: OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION Request: Finding of historic significance City Council Dist.: 2] YEAH. OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD. UM, JESS, YOU WANNA READ THE CASE INTO THE RECORD? YES, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT DELAY. UM, ITEM 19 ON THE AGENDA, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 1 6 5 2 2 2 BROOKS STREET. THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS REQUESTING A FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 2 2 BROOKS STREET. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE AND DIRECTION TO PROCESS REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE H D R C TO CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE DESIGNATION OF 2 2 2 BROOKS STREET BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH G. AND I HAVE OWNER CYNTHIA BORHES ON THE LINE. HI. AND SO TO ANSWER THE QUESTION EARLIER FROM COMMISSIONERS, THIS WAS PROMPTED BY A DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION. UM, SO IN THE REVIEW, UM, STAFF CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION. UM, AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO FORWARD THIS TO THE H C R C FOR ITS REVIEW. OKAY, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER? YES. YES, WE HAVE CYNTHIA BOOR ON THE LINE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. UM, MS. BOOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY GO AHEAD. NO, I DON'T. I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT I NEED TO DO. LIKE WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? UH, WE OBVIOUSLY WANTED TO DEMOLISH THE PLACE, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE CAN DO IT. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS IT THAT I NEED TO DO? UM, WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP FOR ME? PRETTY MUCH, THIS IS NEW TO ME. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MS. MR. CHAIR. UM, UH, JUST A MOMENT PLEASE. UH, WE DO HAVE SOME CITIZEN COMMENTS. YEAH. BUT, BUT MR. CHAIR, THE, THE, THE, THE PERSON THAT JUST SPOKE THE APPLICANT YES, YES. MAY, MAY VERY CLEAR. UM, THAT SHE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE WITH THE PROCESS. I THINK THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO, SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THE APPLICANT KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. [02:15:01] COREY OR JESSICA, CAN YOU CLARIFY THIS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER? YEAH, I THINK WHAT IS, I THINK WHAT IS NEEDED, UM, IS IF THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN PLEASE TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UM, HOW THE PROPERTY'S CURRENTLY USED, UM, HOW LONG SHE'S OWNED IT AND WHY THEY WANNA DEMOLISH. OKAY, SO WE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY LAST YEAR AND I DON'T KNOW YOU HAVE SEEN IT, BUT IT'S IN A REALLY BAD CONDITION AND WE WERE PLANNING TO DEMOLISH IT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT KIND OF FALLING APART. SO WE WANTED TO BUILD ANOTHER STRUCTURE THERE. WE, NOBODY'S LEAVING THERE RIGHT NOW. UM, I WENT TO SEE IT I PROBABLY A MONTH AGO AND THE WINDOWS ARE FALLING OFF. THE WOOD IS VERY POOR QUALITY, SO WE WANTED TO BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE THERE, SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE PLANNING TO DEMOLISH IT. AND THEN I, JESSICA REACHED OUT TO MY BROTHER AND THAT'S HOW I KNEW, I KNOW OF HER BECAUSE THEY WANTED, AND I DON'T, BECAUSE WE ASKED FOR A PERMIT TO DEMOLISH IT, THEY TOLD US BECAUSE THE HOUSE WAS TOO OLD AND THAT IT WAS BUILT IN 1890. THEY WANTED TO MAKE IT LIKE A HISTORIC HOME DESIGNATION. SO THIS IS WHERE WE ARE. SO, AND WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. WE, WE OBVIOUSLY, WE, WE WANNA FOLLOW THE RULES, WHATEVER THE CITY WANTS, BUT I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS IT THAT I NEED TO DO BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY EVERYTHING IS, IS ON HOLD ON MY PART, UH, CONSTRUCTION OR ANYTHING UNTIL I KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. OKAY THEN. SO I WANNA RESPOND TO EVERYONE NOW. UM, SO FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, WE ARE JUST FOLLOWING WHAT THE U D C TELLS US. UM, WHEN WE RECEIVE A DEMOLITION PERMIT, WE REVIEW IT, UM, WE LOOK AT ITS AGE, WE LOOK AT ITS CONDITION AND WE LOOK AT ITS MATERIALS AND STYLE AND WE MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER IT WARRANTS ADDITIONAL REVIEW BY THE H C R C. AND THAT'S WHAT TODAY IS. NOW, WE CAN'T JUST MAKE IT HISTORIC AS YOU SAY. UM, THIS IS POTENTIALLY THE FIRST STEP IN MAKING IT HISTORIC, UM, IS SEEKING, UH, CONCURRENCE FROM THIS COMMISSION. UH, IF IT AGREES WITH STAFF THAT IT'S ELIGIBLE FOR DESIGNATION, BUT THAT DOESN'T START THE DESIGNATION PROCESS. UM, IF, IF THE REQUEST TODAY, UM, FOR ELIGIBILITY IS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, WE WOULD ASK CITY COUNCIL TO INITIATE THAT PROCESS. AND SO THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE CITY COUNCIL IF APPROVED TODAY. UM, AND WE WOULD SEE FROM THERE, UM, IF THERE WAS A, UH, IF THERE'S DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DESIGNATION. UM, SO THOSE WERE THE NEXT STEPS AND UM, I KNOW JESSICA'S VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE PROCESS AND IS GONNA BE WORKING WITH YOU THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. UM, BUT TODAY IS JUST ANSWERING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THE CITY COMMISSION AGREES THAT THE PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR DESIGNATION. OKAY, SO, SO MR. CHAIR, IF I'M, IF I MAY, I I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS THAT THE HOUSE IS NOT HISTORIC TODAY, THAT IT'S COMING BEFORE THIS COMMISSION TO DECIDE WHETHER, UH, IT, IT WOULD BE DEEMED HISTORIC. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T WANT IT HISTORIC, THEN THE APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL THIS COMMISSION WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS IN WHICH CASE THEN WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT CORY SAID. BUT IT NEEDS TO BE VERY CLEAR TO THIS APPLICANT THAT IT'S NOT HISTORIC AND SHE DOES HAVE A SAY SO IN THIS PROCESS. OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THIS IS WHAT I WANNA DO IF THAT IS THE CASE, BECAUSE I HAD A MISUNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING PLUS THE CITY WAS STARTING. SO IF THAT IS THE CASE, WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY AND PUT A NEW BRAND NEW PROPERTY ON TOP OF THAT. THAT'S WHAT I WANNA DO. OKAY. OKAY. UNDER UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, WE DO HAVE SOME CITIZEN COMMENTS BEFORE WE GET INTO, UH, COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. YES. UM, PATTY ZIONS WITH THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY, UM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO SUPPORTS THE FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE FOR 2 22 BROOK STREET. THE HOUSE MEETS AT LEAST THREE CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION AND IS LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF A GROUP OF HOMES AND THIS BLOCK THAT ARE INTACT. THE HOUSE CONFORMS TO THE CONFIGURATION SHOWN ON THE 1896 SANDBORNE MAP AND RETAINS MANY ORIGINAL FEATURES SUCH AS SIDING, FENESTRATION, AND DECORATIVE BARGE BOARD IN THE NORTH GABLE END LANDMARK DESIGNATION WILL ALLOW THE OWNER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TAX INCENTIVES AND OTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES WHILE PRESERVING THIS, WHILE PRESERVING THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THIS LOT. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. ALRIGHT, QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? MR. CHAIR? THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. YES, MA'AM. YEP. I WAS PRESENT AT A D R C. UM, I THINK IT WAS THE APPLICANT'S BROTHER THEN THAT WAS ON THE CALL. UM, FOR A SHORT TIME. WE DID REVIEW THE BLOCK AND, UM, IT IS REALLY, UM, I MEAN REALLY IS A, [02:20:01] A BLOCK THAT HAS VERY SIMILAR HOMES. I'M IN THE BETTER STATE, SOME SAME STATE, BUT REALLY, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, HOMES THAT DATE BACK TO THE SAME YEAR AS THIS HOME ON THE BLOCK. AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF ALSO PART OF WHY THAT WOULD BE ALSO REASON FOR THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE. I, WE DID REVIEW THE, UM, ITEMS THAT STAFF, UH, HAS USED AS CRITERIA AND I KIND OF AGREE WITH STAFF ON THAT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER? YES, SIR. UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, HAVE YOU ALL CONDUCTED A SITE VISIT AND EXAMINED THE CONDITION OF THIS TO SEE IF IT HAS PHYSICAL INTEGRITY AS WELL AS HISTORICAL INTEGRITY WITHIN ITS CONTEXT? COREY, ARE YOU OKAY IF I ANSWER THAT? YEAH, OF COURSE. I, I, I WAS EXPECTING , I'M SORRY. UM, SO YES, I DID CONDUCT A SITE VISIT WITH, UM, UH, MS. WAR'S BROTHER JU ANO. UM, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO ACCESS THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE THE FRONT DOORS ARE BOARDED. UM, WE, THERE'S SORT OF A, A, A FINE LINE BETWEEN ASSESSING, UM, CONDITION AND INTEGRITY. UM, I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONS TO THE REAR, UM, THAT I, I THINK WOULD, WE WOULD CONSIDER NON-CONTRIBUTING AND COULD BE REMOVED THAT ARE SORT OF, UH, DETACHING FROM THE HISTORIC FOOTPRINT. UM, BUT I MEAN, WE'VE, WE'VE SEEN PROPERTIES IN BETTER CONDITION AND WE'VE SEEN PROPERTIES IN WORSE CONDITION THAT WE'VE TAKEN TO H D R C. UM, THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORIC MATERIALS RE RETAINED ON THE PROPERTY. UM, HISTORIC WOOD WINDOWS, HISTORIC GABLE FEATURES, AND THE FOOTPRINT IS VERY SIMILAR TO HOW IT APPEARED IN 1892. SO IT, IT RETAINS QUITE A BIT OF, OF HISTORIC INTEGRITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER, AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED IN THE, UH, COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER GRU AND MS. ANDERSON, UH, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE. UM, THIS IS TO THE HOMEOWNER. IF THIS GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS AND BECOMES A DESIGNATED LANDMARK, THAT DOES NOT STOP YOU FROM PROPOSING, UH, ADDITIONS TO THE HOUSE, UH, OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE HOUSE. IT WOULD JUST HAVE TO COME THROUGH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND POSSIBLY THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. OKAY. OTHER QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEBODY ELSE IS. YES. COMMISSIONER, UM, STAFF? UH, I HEARD MY, MY COMPUTER WENT OUT A SECOND AGO. I DIDN'T FINISH. GET TO HEAR YOU FINISH. YOU HAVEN'T BEEN INSIDE OF THE HOUSE STAFF? WE COULD, WE COULD USE THROUGH THE WINDOWS, BUT I HAVEN'T WALKED THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND SO YOU CAN SEE, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER. UH, AND HAS THERE BEEN ANY, UM, UH, EFFORT, DISCOVERY, EFFORT WITH THE OWNER TO SEE IF THERE'S A LOCATION, UM, OR SOMEONE ELSE WILLING TO RELOCATE? THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY SOMETHING I INCLUDE AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCESS. OKAY. UH, IT JUST, IT'S A VERY, VERY HARD TO, TO SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, A DESIGNATION REQUEST WHEN FULL SURVEY HASN'T BEEN EVEN, YOU KNOW, HASN'T BEEN AVAILABLE. YOU HAVEN'T BEEN IN THE HOUSE, IS THE OWNER DID SAY THAT IT'S IN VERY, VERY BAD SHAPE. UM, IT'S HARD NOT TO, IT'S HARD TO PICK WHO, WHOSE CREDIBILITY IS MORE VALID HERE. RIGHT. UM, I JUST, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT THE SURVEY SHOULD BE MORE, MORE THOROUGH AND I'D BE WILLING TO GO WITH YOU GUYS AND LOOK AT THE HOUSE AND WE CAN GO INSIDE IF YOU GUYS WANT TO, AND I'LL DO WHATEVER YOU GUYS WANT ME TO DO. I WILL ALWAYS FOLLOW THE LAW, WHATEVER IT IS. I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT I NEED TO DO BECAUSE I DON'T, HONESTLY, I, THE HOUSE IS TECHNICALLY FALLING APART, BUT I'LL DO WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS MY NEXT STEP. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS WITH THE STAFF. UH, THE CONDITION THAT WAS OBSERVED, UM, NUMBER ONE, DOES IT APPEAR THAT THE STRUCTURE [02:25:01] IS STILL ON ITS FOUNDATIONS OR HAVE PARTS OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE FALLEN OFF ITS FOUNDATIONS WHEN YOU LOOK OKAY, WHEN YOU LOOK INSIDE THE HOUSE? GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. HER, HER, HER CALL JUST DROPPED. UM, CAN YOU GIMME ONE MOMENT TO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT I THINK THAT SHE LOST CONNECTIVITY. UM, LET ME TRY TO GET HER BACK ON THE LINE. HOLD ON ONE MOMENT. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. JUST A QUICK COMMENT. I MEAN, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I AM ALL FOR PRESERVING THE CONTINUITY THAT BLOCK AND, AND WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT I THINK THAT BEFORE WE CAN MAKE THIS DETERMINATION, BEFORE I CAN MAKE THIS DETERMINATION, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO SEE THE PROPERTY, UH, FOR MYSELF. AND AS FAR AS WHO HAS MORE CREDIBILITY, I THINK O H P STAFF IS HIGHLY EDUCATED, HIGHLY TRAINED, HIGHLY EXPERIENCED. THEY, I HAVE A LOT OF, UM, OF, UH, TRUST AND AND RESPECT IN THEIR OPINION ON THIS. UM, BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS SO THAT WE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S GOT PHYSICAL INTEGRITY AS WELL AS AS HISTORICAL, UH, SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE BLOCK. AND MR. CHAIR, I, IN, IN THE, IN THE INTERIM, YES, SIR. WE'RE WAITING. I'D MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS, BUT I ALSO WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THAT, UM, YOU, YOU KNOW, UH, LOOKING THROUGH A WINDOW IS, IS, UH, JUAN FORM OF INTEGRITY AND OWNING THE PROPERTY AND BEING IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY IS ANOTHER FORM OF INTEGRITY. UM, SO IT IS, IT'S REALLY MORE OF THE, OF THE, OF THE EXPERIENCE OF THE SPACE. I, I QUESTION LOOKING THROUGH A WINDOW, YOU KNOW, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. UM, SINCE WE'RE HAVING SOME CONNECTIVITY PROBLEMS, I CAN WITHDRAW MY QUESTION AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE OWNER WAS AGREEABLE TO A D R C SITE VISIT. SO I MOVED FOR A D R C SITE VISIT. COMMISSIONER CPER, I SECOND. YES, AND I'M, I'M BACK. SO THANK YOU. YEAH, I HAVE OWNER BACK ON THE LINE. YES. UM, DID SOMEBODY ALREADY MOVE TO CONTINUE? IT WASN'T SECONDED, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS BY APOLOGIES. I'M SORRY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND FOR CONTINUANCE, WOULD YOU ADD THAT WE PROVIDE, THAT WE SCHEDULE A D R C SITE VISIT TO YOUR MOTION? THAT THAT WAS WHAT I WAS, THAT WAS THE MOTION? YES. OKAY. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? I, I JUST ON DISCUSSION IF I COULD REAL QUICK TOO. I, I JUST HEARD THE APPLICANT SOUND VERY MUCH, UM, IN AGREEMENT TO TRY AND FIND COMPLIANCE, I GUESS IN THE SITUATION, I JUST WANNA BROKEN ANY LAW. YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG. UM, YOUR IDEA TO EVEN DEMOLISH IS SOMETHING THIS COMMISSION CAN STILL ENTERTAIN OR OTHER BODIES CAN ENTERTAIN AS WELL. SO, UM, JUST JUST KNOW THAT YOUR IDEAS DON'T LIMIT YOUR IDEAS YET YOU STILL HAVE PLANS AVAILABLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER, MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? PLEASE. FISH. AYE. AYE GIBBS? AYE. QUEZ AYE. AREOLA? AYE. ERON AYE. CARPENTER AYE GROUP? AYE. BOWMAN. AYE. THAT AYE, AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [20. 21-3025 Address/Description: 815 QUITMAN ST, 819 QUITMAN ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-462 Historic District Name: Government Hill Applicant: Mark Sullivan Request: Conceptual approval for new construction of 24’ tall studio structure City Council Dist.: 2] UM, ITEM 28 15 QUITMAN, WE, YES, I ITEM NUMBER 20, CASE NUMBER 20 24 62 AT 8 15 8 19 EQUIPMENT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR FINAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A THREE A 3,200 SQUARE FOOT PRIVATE STUDIO STRUCTURE. STAFF RECOMMENDS CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL BASED ON THE FINDINGS. THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FOR FINAL APPROVAL. ONE, THAT THE, IF A DEEP FRONT SETBACK IS USED AS PROPOSED, THEN THE SITE PLAN SHOULD FEATURE A REDUCED PARKING PAD PAVED AREA BY HALF, WHERE THE PLAN CURRENTLY DEPICTS A NEARLY FULL WIDTH PAVED AREA WITH FOUR PARKING SPOTS SET TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. THAT THE FINAL WINDOW PRODUCT SHOULD ADHERE TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOWS IN NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMIT AT LEAST 80% SUFFICIENT CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND PERMITTING. PER THE APPLICANT, THE SELECTED MANUFACTURER, MUELLER INCORPORATED, WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO PROV PRODUCE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AFTER DOCUMENTATION OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL [02:30:01] IS PROVIDED. I HAVE THE APPLICANT, MARK SULLIVAN ON THE LINE. UH, THE APPLICANT HAS COMMUNICATED THAT THEY INSIST ON FINAL APPROVAL, UM, AS STAFF FINDS THE, THE DOCUMENTATION IS NOT, UH, READY FOR SUPPORT FOR FINAL APPROVAL. MARK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO, UM, TO THAT, UH, ISSUE? SURE. THANK YOU. HU. UM, FIRST, YOU KNOW, EXCUSE ME, I'M, I'M IN, UH, UH, HOSPITAL RIGHT NOW WITH MY BOY. UM, SO, AND I, MY PHONE MAY GO OUT. I'M AT ABOUT, UH, 2% CHARGE ON THIS. AND NUMBER ONE, UM, WE DID GO OVER ALL OF THIS, UH, THE LAST H D R C COMMISSIONER'S MEETING AND THE ONE BEFORE. AND AT THE LAST MEETING, ALL THAT WAS TO BE REQUIRED WERE SOME REFINED DRAWINGS. AND WE DID, UH, SUBMIT THE REFINED DRAWINGS AND WE, UH, AND THAT'S ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED. AND NOW, YOU KNOW, WAYS COMING UP WITH MORE WINDOWS STUFF AND MORE PARKING STUFF. AND WE DID THE PARKING EXACTLY REQUIRED. AND, UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY, YOU KNOW, EVERY MEETING IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING MORE IS BEING THROWN IN FRONT OF US. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER, BUT ONCE BEF THE MEETING BEFORE, YOU KNOW, WAS THIS THING WAS THROWN IN FRONT OF US TO MOVE THE WHOLE BUILDING RIGHT UP TO THE FRONT OF THE STREET. AND THEN THE THING WAS TO UP IN FRONT OF US TO PUT THE OVERHEAD DOOR ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THERE'S ONLY SIX FEET TO GET A TRUCK INTO THE, AND THEN THIS THING WAS THROWN UP IN FRONT OF US WITH THESE WINDOWS THAT, UH, IMPOSSIBLE. AND THEN, ANYWAY, I'M SORRY, THE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE LAST MEETING WERE SIMPLY TO WITHDRAW AND REFINE THE DRAWINGS AND TO SUBMIT DRAWINGS WITH THE FOUR REQUIRED PARKING SPACES TO THE WEST SIDE. WE DID THAT. AND NOW, UM, THE, YOU KNOW, WHY HE'S ASKING US TO CHANGE THE WINDOWS AGAIN AND THEN TO CHANGE THE PARKING AGAIN. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN THREE YEARS THAT WE HAVE BEEN STUCK IN THE HISTORIC AND WE REPL TO THE BUILDING. WE REDESIGNED THE BUILDING, WE'VE RESUBMITTED THE PLANS TWICE TO MUELLER AND I'M HOPING THAT AT THIS JUNCTURE WE CAN RECEIVE FINAL APPROVAL AND GET THIS FINISHED. SO WE DO NOT CONTINUE THIS FOREVER. UM, SO THAT'S WHY I'M AT THIS POINT REQUESTING FINAL APPROVAL, PLEASE. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. UH, QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? I GOT A QUESTION FOR CORY. YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ CORY, WHEN A PROJECT LIKE THIS COMES BEFORE US AND TAKES A LONG TIME, AND IF AN APPLICANT DECIDES JUST TO LIKE GO WITH THE VOTE AND THEN THE VOTE IS A DENIAL, IT, IT, CAN THE APPLICANT TAKE THAT DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? UM, AND CAN, AND CAN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OVERRULE, UH, UH, UH, A, A A A DECISION THAT ENABLES 'EM TO DO WHATEVER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, UH, ALLOWS? UM, LEE, CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME WHETHER THIS REQUEST IS FOR A CERTIFICATE OR CONCEPTUAL? THIS REQUEST IS FOR A CERTIFICATE, HOWEVER, STAFF IS ONLY RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL UNTIL UPDATED DOCUMENTS ARE, OR ARE ADEQUATE DOCUMENTS ARE SUBMITTED FOR YEAH. FINAL PROVEN PERMITTING. SO, I MEAN, TECHNICALLY, YES. UM, THE REASON I ASK THE QUESTION IS, UM, AS YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE COME WITH THIS KIND OF LEVEL OF DOCUMENTATION. IT'S MORE SCHEMATIC AND REQUEST CONCEPTUAL REVIEW. UM, SO ONLY A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE CAN BE APPEALED. AND I MEAN, SINCE THAT IS THE REQUEST, I BELIEVE THEY COULD APPEAL. UM, IT'S JUST NOT QUITE THE LEVEL OF DOCUMENTATION THAT WE WOULD NORMALLY SEE FOR C O A REQUEST. SO THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE. UM, IF THIS WAS APPROVED THROUGH AN APPEAL, UM, THEN WE WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT GETS PERMITTED IS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH, WITH WHAT WAS SEEN AT THE TIME OF THE DECISION. BUT, BUT , TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION MORE SUCCINCTLY, YES, IT COULD BE APPEALED. WELL, AND, AND I, AND COREY, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOUR, YOUR, YOU KNOW, YOUR PRESENTATION THERE. IT JUST SEEMS THAT THERE, THAT THERE'S A DISCONNECT IN THE GRAPHIC ASPECT OF THIS, OF THIS PROJECT. AND I, I KNOW [02:35:01] IT'S VERY HARD TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT GRAPHICS, UH, BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT THERE, THERE, I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO DRAW FOR SOMEBODY, BUT WELL, AND TO KIND OF RESPOND TO THE APPLICANT'S FRUSTRATION, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING, UM, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS NOT NORMALLY THE LEVEL OF, UM, UH, DETAIL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATE. AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE ALLOWING THIS TO BE HERE AND FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IT. AND WE'VE ADDED THE STIPULATIONS THAT, THAT THE KIND OF FINAL PERMIT DRAWINGS TO BE DEVELOPED FURTHER FOR STAFF TO REVIEW. AND SO NOW WE ARE, WE ARE PROVIDING AN OPTION FOR AN ACTION TODAY. UM, BUT, BUT YEAH, THAT'S THE CONCERN. MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN. YES, SIR. MR. FISH. UM, I CAN GIVE A BRIEF REPORT FROM I THINK AT LEAST ONE, IF NOT TWO, UH, D R C MEETINGS. UM, I, THERE THERE WASN'T ANY, ANY SUBSTANTIVE, UH, DISAGREEMENT OR OUTSTANDING ISSUES, UM, FROM THE D R C. THE TROUBLE HAS BEEN TO GET, UH, AN ADEQUATE SITE PLAN THAT IS SHOWING WHERE THERE'S PAVEMENT AND VEGETATION. THE SITE PLAN INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE, IT DOESN'T SHOW WHERE THE PAVEMENT EDGES ARE, AND THE SURVEY IS CONTRADICTORY IN SOME WAYS. SO I DON'T THINK THERE REALLY IS A SUBSTANCE ISSUE HERE. I THINK IT'S A DOCUMENTATION ISSUE. HOWEVER, IN THE PROCESS OF DOCUMENTATION THERE COULD BE, UH, DETAIL ISSUES OR A WINDOW SIZE ISSUE OR SOMETHING. BUT GENERALLY THE D R C WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE WINDOW CONFIGURATION, UH, SIZE AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. SO I THINK THE STIPULATIONS HERE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE D R C AND THEY'RE NOT, UH, REQUIRING CHANGE STIPULATION ONE IS, UH, THAT A, THAT A SITE PLAN, UH, DEPICT THE PAVED AREA VERSUS PAVED IN LANDSCAPING. NUMBER TWO, THE, THE WINDOW PRODUCT COMPLY WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR NEW CON FOR WINDOWS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND NUMBER THREE, THE, THE DOCUMENT SET REACH A LEVEL OF 80% TO BE ABLE TO BE, TO BE PERMITTED. IF, UH, THE APPLICANT SUBMITS DRAWINGS THAT, THAT MEET THAT STANDARD, THEN UH, STAFF COULD ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. SO I WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS ONE THROUGH THREE. I'LL SECOND QUEZ. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. WITH, WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS ONE THROUGH THREE STAFF REVIEW UPDATED DRAWINGS. MR. CHAIRMAN? THIS IS, YES, SIR. MR. CARPENTER, THANK YOU. UM, I JUST WANTED TO, UH, ECHO WHAT, UH, COMMISSIONER FISH SAID, UM, ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DRCS AND TO EXPLAIN TO THE OWNER THAT THERE'S A, A CERTAIN LEVEL OF FAIRNESS TOO THAT WE'RE HAVING TO, UH, EXHIBIT HERE FOR ALL APPLICANTS TO, UH, APPEAR HERE WITH A PROPER LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR DRAWINGS SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND IT AND ULTIMATELY FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO GET A PERMIT. AND, UH, I THINK YOU MAY SEE THIS AS A STUMBLING BLOCK. I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S BEEN THREE YEARS. I THINK IT'S JUST BEEN MONTHS SINCE WE'VE BEEN, UH, DISCUSSING THIS PROJECT. BUT, UM, WE'RE DOING YOU A FAVOR. 'CAUSE IF YOU GO TO PERMITTING WITH INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTS, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO FILE YOU UP THERE. SO I THINK, UH, LISTEN TO, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO DOCUMENT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS DESIGN AND, UM, AND, AND, AND KNOW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK IN YOUR BEST INTEREST HERE. MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY? YES, SIR. YEAH, I'D WANNA ECHO SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS. AND I WANNA THANK THE COMMISSIONERS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THOSE DRCS TOO. UH, I THINK Y'ALL ARE TRYING YOUR BEST TO GUIDE THIS, THIS ONE AND, AND BEING VERY PATIENT AND, AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. SO THANK YOU GUYS FOR THAT. THANK YOU. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH? AYE. WELL BEFORE, IF I MAY, UH, WE'RE, CAN YOU HEAR ME MR. CHAIR? DO, DO, WE'RE VOTING ON, UH, APPROVAL FOR YOUR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, MR. SULLIVAN. THE STIPULATION ON THE WINDOWS HAS ALREADY BEEN, UH, WE ALREADY WENT OVER THAT LAST MEETING. I SAID THE WINDOWS WERE FINE. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE, IT IT IS, IT IS A STANDARD STIPULATION THAT'S ON ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION. IT'S NOT ASKING YOU TO CHANGE NECESSARILY, IT JUST STAYS WITH THE APPROVAL LANGUAGE DOC DOCUMENTATION. IS IT ASKING ME TO, IS IT ASKING ME TO CHANGE THE FOUR PARKING SPACES AND MAKE THEM TWO? NO, IT'S ASKING YOU TO DOCUMENT IT CORRECTLY. IT SAYS FOUR PARKING SPACES NOW, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY, WELL THAT'S WHAT THEY ASKED FOR LAST TIME. SO WE CHANGED IT TO FOUR PARKING SPACES. AND THEN NOW WHAT, [02:40:01] WHAT DO WE NEED TO CHANGE? THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WE ASKED FOR FOUR PARKING SPACES, FOUR PARKING SPACES. UH, MR. CHAIR, LET'S, LET'S CONTINUE WITH THIS VOTE PLEASE. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? AND THEN STAFF CAN WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON, UH, WHAT'S REQUIRED TO GET HIS C OF A FISH. AYE, GIBBS. AYE THAT WAS NAY, THAT WAS, AYE. OH, I'M SORRY. GOOD THING I ASKED QUEZ. AYE, AREOLA AYE. ZUMA AYE. CARPENTER AYE GROUP. AYE. BOWMAN AYE. AYE. FETZER AYE. LA AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. SO STAFF WILL GET WITH YOU MR. SULLIVAN, ABOUT WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR SUBMITTAL THAT YOU WILL NEED FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES AS WELL. [21. 21-3061 Address/Description: 1038 DAWSON ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-478 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: ricardo mccullough/mccullough design associates Request: Construction of two, 2-story, and two, 1-story residential structures City Council Dist.: 2] OKAY. ITEM 21. EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? EDWARD? AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 21, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 24 78. 10 38 DAWSON, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT TWO ONE STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND TWO, TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE VACANT LOT AT 10 38 DAWSON LOCATED WITHIN THE DIG WOODY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND MASSING WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE TWO SOUTHERN STRUCTURES ON DAWSON ALLEY BE REORIENTED TO FEATURE FRONT FIDES THAT FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THAT IS DAWSON ALLEY AS NOTED IN FINDING E THIS WILL ALSO ELIMINATE PARKING WITHIN THE FRONT YARD IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED. TWO, THAT EACH STRUCTURE FEATURE A FRONT PORCH WITH MASSING THAT IS INTEGRAL TO THAT OF THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION. AS NOTED IN FINDING M THREE, THAT ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONSIDERATION AND FENESTRATION PATTERNS BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE SIDE FACADES OF THE TWO STORY STRUCTURES, POTENTIALLY THROUGH THE USE OF WRAP OF THE WRAPAROUND PORCH, WHERE THE DUPLEX STRUCTURE FEATURES THE SIDE ELEVATION THAT FACES THE SIDE ALLEY FOUR, THAT THE PROPOSED DUPLEXES FEATURE ENTRANCE DOORS WHERE ONE FACES THE STREET AND ONE FACES THE SIDE YARD WITHIN THE PORCHES. RECESS IS FOUND HISTORICALLY ON MANY RECESS PORCHES WITHIN THE DISTRICT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS CONFIGURATION OF TWO DOORS ARE NEEDED FOR DUPLEX UNITS. FIVE, THAT ALL SIDING FEATURE FOUR INCH EXPOSURE THICKNESS OF THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH MITER CORNERS AND A AND A SMOOTH FINISH. COLUMNS SHOULD BE SIX INCHES SQUARE AND WINDOW MATERIAL SHOULD MEET STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND SIX AT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED FROM VIEW AS NOTED IN FINDING FEES. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND FINAL APPROVAL OR THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS UNTIL THE STIPULATIONS NOTED ABOVE HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN. AND THEN I'LL UPDATED COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. I HAVE, UH, MR. RICARDO MCCULLOUGH ON THE LINE, WHO IS THE APPLICANT AND DESIGNER FOR THIS PROJECT. I WILL NOTE, UM, THIS PROJECT WAS MOST RECENTLY REVIEWED BY THE DESIGNER YOU COMMITTEE LAST WEEK, AND THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF IN THAT TIME. UH, REGARDING UPDATED DOCUMENTS WHERE MANY OF THE STIPULATIONS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS JUST SENT THOSE TOO LATE TO WHERE THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED IN TODAY'S DISCUSSION. RICARDO, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I AM EDWARD. THANK YOU, THE COMMISSIONERS. GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, AND YEAH, I, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT, UH, AFTER OUR LAST, UH, GO AROUND WITH, UH, WITH THE DESIGN REVIEW, UH, I ACTUALLY ADDRESS ALL THESE FIVE, UH, ISSUES. UH, AS THEY WERE FINALS. UH, WE ROTATED BOTH PROPERTIES. THEY, OR THE DWELLINGS THERE WILL BE FACING THE ALLEY. SO THE FRONT PORCH WILL BE LOOKING TO THE BACK, UH, IN THE ALLEY. WE ALSO INCORPORATED A WRAPAROUND PORCH TO, UH, ALLOW ALSO FROM A SIDE ENTRY TO ONE OF THE DUPLEX UNITS. AND THIS HAPPENED TO BOTH THE, THE DUPLEX UNITS. UM, WE ARE, UH, IN WITH THE INTENTION OF PROVIDING THE EXACT SIDING WITH WOOD FINISH, UH, AS STIPULATED BY STAFF WITH, UH, THE SIX INCH COLUMNS AS WELL. AND THESE SHOULD BE, UM, UH, THE LAST OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE ARE, UH, WITH INTENTION OF DRESSING. UH, OKAY. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS. UM, YES, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE. UM, THE FIRST IS FROM PATTI ZIONS, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO, CONCURS WITH THE O H P NATIONS TO DENY FINAL APPROVAL UNTIL THEIR STIPULATIONS HAVE BEEN MET, SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE [02:45:01] REORIENTATION OF THE TWO SOUTHERN STRUCTURES AND ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONSIDERATION OF THE MASSING ADMINISTRATION PATTERNS. WHILE THE SITE PLAN HAS MUCH IMPROVED ADDITIONAL REVISIONS TO ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SUCH AS PORCHES AND FENESTRATIONS, AS WELL AS STREET ELEVATIONS OF THE ALLEY SHOULD BE PRODUCED FOR A FINAL APPROVAL. UM, AND THE NEXT COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE DEVELOPING THE SCALE AND MASSING OF THE DUPLEX UNITS. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, QUESTIONS AND CO FIRST, CAN WE GET A, UH, REPORT FROM THE, THE LAST D R C? YES, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I CAN GIVE A REPORT. I BELIEVE I ATTENDED THE LAST ONE. SO I THINK, UH, STAFF STIPULATIONS DOES A VERY GOOD JOB OF, OF SORT OF SUMMARIZING, ENCAPSULATING, UH, THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD DURING THAT D R C ABOUT THE, THE VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS TO SHIFTING PORCHES, FLIPPING, UH, THE UNITS AROUND. SO THEY ADDRESS, UH, EITHER THE DAWSON ALLEY OR DAWSON STREET RESPECTIVELY. AND IF THE APPLICANT IS, IS ACCEPTING OF THOSE, UH, STIPULATIONS, UH, I WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? IS THIS COMMISSIONER FISH? I WOULD SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. ANY DISCUSSION? WE'RE GONNA PUT THOSE ON THE SCREEN. COMMISSIONERS, YOUR HONOR. UH, CHAIRMAN FITZER, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING ON THE ONE STIPULATION IS TALKING ABOUT THE ORIENTATION. DOES THAT MEAN THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS NOT THAT AND THE DRAWINGS, LIKE IF STAFF COULD GO TO THE DRAWINGS TO, TO THE SITE PLAN, THE ONE ON SCREEN DRAWING 21. OKAY. SO, SO ARE, ARE, ARE WE UNDERSTANDING THAT WORKING WITH STAFF, THIS DRAWING ALREADY REFLECTS THAT? YES, I, SO PREVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT HAD THE STRUCTURES ORIENTED TO WHERE THEY LIKE IT. IT ESSENTIALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE, THE TWO STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON THE PLAN NORTH, WELL PLAN SOUTH OF THE LOT, THE TOP PAGE OF THE LOT. UM, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE FRONT PORCH AS PROPOSED ACTUALLY FACES THE REAR FACADE OF THE STRUCTURE THAT IS ORIENTED TOWARD DAWSON STREET, UM, TO THE PLAN, TO THE TRUE SOUTH OF THE, THE, THE PROPERTY IS THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. IT'S AN ALLEY, IT'S DAWSON ALLEY. AND SO WHAT STAFF IS NOTING AND RECOMMENDING IS THAT THE APPLICANT REORIENT BOTH OF THOSE STRUCTURES TO WHERE THE FRONT PORCH IS ACTUALLY ORIENTED TOWARD THE ALLEY. UM, THAT WAY AS INDIVIDUALS ARE PARKING WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF THE LOT, THERE'S NOT PARKING IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE FRONT PORCH. AND THERE'S ALSO NOT TWO REAR FACADES THAT ARE AT THE INTERSECTION OF TWO RIGHT OF WAYS WITHIN THE DISTRICT. SO AS WE, AS WE SEE THIS NOW, YOU HAVE TWO FRONT PORCHES THAT ARE FACING THE REAR FACADES OF THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON DAWSON STREET. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THOSE ROTATE. OKAY. NOW LET ME ASK YOU A QUE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IN IT. IS, IS AS WE SEE THE LOT LINES RIGHT NOW, IS THE PROPERTY PLATTED THAT WAY? NO. MR. MCCO? YEAH, IF I CAN ANSWER THAT. NO. UH, WE STILL WORKING WITH THE ENGINEER AS FAR AS THE RELA WE HAD ALREADY DONE A FINAL DRAFT TO GO TO RELA, BUT BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY MADE SOME CHANGES, ONE OF THE, THE, THE LOCKS, WHICH IS THE REAR, UH, RIGHT LOCK, UH, WAS NOT, UH, MEETING THE PERCEPTION WE NEEDED FOR IN PREVIOUS. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE SHAPE OF IT. BUT THE ENGINEER HAS ALREADY MADE A NOTE OF THIS AND HE'S MOVING FORWARD TO, TO GO WITH IT. OKAY. NOW, NO, SIR. BECAUSE IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THOSE WERE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, THE TWO REAR STRUCTURES THAT ARE BACKING UP TO FLORENCE ALLEY, THAT THEY WOULD'VE TO TURN AROUND ANYWAY BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE ADDRESSED. YEAH, WE, YEAH. AND WE ALREADY TOOK CARE OF THAT. IT'S JUST THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, THIS IS A PREVIOUS PRESENTATION THAT WE HAD. OKAY. AND AFTER GOING THROUGH, THROUGH THE DESIGN REVIEW, UH, LAST WEEK, I PROVIDED ED WITH, UH, [02:50:01] AN UPDATED DRAWINGS, BUT I DIDN'T PROVIDE HIM, UH, WITH A GOOD ENOUGH TIME FOR, HE GET, FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN TODAY. OKAY. SO EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT, THAT HE MENTIONED JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO HAS ALREADY BEING ADDRESSED. OKAY. SO THEN ED EDWARD IS ON THE RECOMMENDATION. IS THERE ANYTHING THERE THAT HASN'T BEEN ANY, ANYTHING THAT HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED? UH, NO. I MEAN, GENERALLY IT'S FINE DETAILS AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS THAT OVERSIGHTS THE APPLICANT WILL WORK THROUGH. BUT NO, THE APPLICANT IS, HAS ADDRESS, HE'S INCORPORATED A WRAPAROUND PORCH. THE STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN REORIENTED. UH, HE'S INCORPORATED THE FRONT PORCH MASSING, UH, ON THE TWO, TWO STORY STRUCTURES BY ACTUALLY INCORPORATING A WRAPAROUND PORCH. THEY'VE INCORPORATED ADDITIONAL FENESTRATION ON THE, UH, SIDE STREET FACING FACADES ON THE TWO STORY STRUCTURES. UM, SO I MEAN THE APPLICANT'S DONE A GOOD JOB IN ADDRESSING STAFF'S COMMENTS. IT'S JUST SIMPLY THAT THEY WEREN'T SUBMITTED TO BE INCLUDED WITH THIS, WITH THIS PRESENTATION. AND EDWARD, THIS IS FOR CONCEPTUAL OR FOR FINAL. SO THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING IS CONCEPTUAL OF THE UPDATED SITE PLAN AND MASSING WITH THESE STIPULATIONS AND THAT THE APPLICANT COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT SET REFLECTING THESE STIPULATIONS TO SUBMIT FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. WELL THEN, MR. CHAIR, I'D, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONCEPTUAL AS, UH, WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OR, UH, RETURN FOR FINAL APPROVAL. CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MOTION MOTION ALREADY ON THE, OH, OKAY. YEAH, WELL, I'LL SECOND IT IF THERE'S NOT ONE READY. SECONDED ALREADY BY COMMISSIONER FISH. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? AYE, GIBBS. AYE. QUEZ AYE. AYE. AREOLA AYE. AYE. AYE. CARPENTER, I AYE GROUP. AYE. BOWMAN. OH, AYE BETS, SIR. AYE. . AYE. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, [22. 21-3145 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] ADAM. 22. THANK YOU. WE ARE YOU THERE? 22, CASE NUMBER 20 21 1 58 AT 6 31 CEDAR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, REPLACE THE ALUMINUM SIDING TO INSTALL WOOD LAPS SIDING, MATCHING THE HISTORIC PROFILE ON TOP OF THE EXISTING WOOD SIDING, AND TWO, REPLACE THE EXISTING STANDING SEAM ROOF WITH A 50 YEAR COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF BASED ON THE SHAKE SHINGLES UNDERNEATH. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE BASED ON FINDING C 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 RIDGE CAPS. THIS CASE COMES TO US AS A, UM, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PERMITTING ERROR. THE, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS OPERATED IN GOOD FAITH. THERE WAS A DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE SITE VISIT, WHICH I CAN READ THE FINDING FOR OR HAVE A COMMISSIONER BRIEF. UH, I HAVE JAY ON THE LINE. UM, JAY, IF YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND PROVIDE OPENING COMMENTS. I'M SORRY, JAY, IF YOU'D JUST LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND, AND PROVIDE SOME OPENING COMMENTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION ADDRESSES YOU. UH, YES. MY NAME IS, UH, MR. K I'M A CONTRACTOR, UM, WORKING AT 6 31 CEDAR. UM, BELIEVE EVERYONE IS AWARE OF, UM, THE INCIDENTS THAT TOOK PLACE FOR THE ERRORS OF, UH, PERMITTING. UH, AND I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE, UM, ISSUES FROM LAST TIME. UM, I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO GET A REDIRECT ON THE SIGHTING ISSUES, UM, PROFILE ISSUES, UH, WHICH WE DID TALK ABOUT THERE AT THE SITE VISIT, BUT I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO HEAR WHAT Y'ALL HAVE TO SAY FIRST TODAY, AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AFTER IT SO WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, WE HAVE COMMENTS? YEAH. UM, WE, I'M GONNA MUTE YOU REAL QUICK SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT INTERFERENCE. AND MAKE SURE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF IN A SECOND. UM, , ACTUALLY, WE HAVE A LIVE CALLER. UM, SO, UH, STEPHANIE, YOU HAVE LISA LIMB IN THE LINE, RIGHT? [02:55:04] WE HAVE LISA ON THE LINE. LISA, YOU READY FOR ME? YES. YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, THIS IS LISA LIN ON BEHALF OF THE KING WILLIAM ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT. WHILE IT IS DISAPPOINTING THAT THE ORIGINAL SIGHTING IS NOT EXPOSED, WE UNDERSTAND THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE PERMITTING ERROR AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE, NEW SIDING. WE ALSO CONCUR WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO INSTALL A STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO REPLACE THE METAL ROOFING THAT WAS REMOVED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A, UH, D R C REPORT? UH, YES. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. SO WE HAD A D R C, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER FISH HAD HAD, UH, REQUESTED, UH, THAT WE GO AND, AND HAVE A SITE VISIT. UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, UH, FETZER AND I WERE THERE ON SITE ALONG WITH ME AND, AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE. WE, UH, TOOK A LOOK AT THE, UH, PARTICULARLY THE OFFSETS BETWEEN THE NEW SIDING, WHICH IS ON TOP OF INSTALLED ON TOP OF THE, THE OLD HISTORIC SIGHTING AFTER THEY TOOK THE ALUMINUM SIGHTING OFF AND OBSERVED THAT THE, THE TRIM, THE FLAT BOARD TRIM AROUND THE WINDOWS AND DOORS, UM, ARE PRETTY FLUSH. NOW. MAYBE THERE'S A, UH, CORE INCH OR LESS OF, OF A, UM, AN OFFSET IN PLAIN, UH, BETWEEN THOSE ELEMENTS. UH, BUT WE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE, THE WINDOWSILL HAD SOME DEPTH AND A POTENTIAL SOLUTION THAT, UH, WE DISCUSSED, UH, ONSITE WAS GOING AHEAD AND PERMITTING THE SIDING TO REMAIN, UM, GIVEN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THIS APPLICATION TOOK PLACE. YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THAT, SHOWING THAT IMAGE. BUT, UM, BUT PROPOSING THAT A ADDITIONAL, UH, ONE BY MATERIAL BE ADDED TO THE, JUST THE FRONT FACING WINDOWS AND DOORS TO GIVE THAT SHADOW LINE PROFILE THAT YOU SEE AT, AT, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AND, AND UP AND DOWN THE STREET IN MANY OF THE OTHER STRUCTURES. BUT TO, UH, GO AHEAD AND PERMIT, UH, THE EXISTING CONDITION TO REMAIN FOR THE SIDES AND REAR OF THE STRUCTURE AND TO, UH, PERMIT THEM TO HAVE THE, THE, UH, STAND THE, UH, COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF SINCE THAT IS, WHILE THAT WASN'T A REPLACEMENT IN KIND, IT CERTAINLY IS NOT AN UNUSUAL, UH, MATERIAL FOR THAT, UH, PERIOD AND FOR THAT, UH, THAT ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. THANK YOU. UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN. I HAVE A, A FUNCTIONAL QUESTION ABOUT THE, THE TRIM THAT IN THAT ENGINE RIGHT THERE, UM, UNDERNEATH, AND THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT UNDERNEATH THIS TRIM, THIS NEW SIDING THAT WAS INSTALLED, DOES THE PREVIOUS LAP SIDING SLIDE BEHIND THAT TRIM STILL? UM, THE, THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE NORMALLY THAT TRIM IS THERE TO PROTECT THAT VERTICAL JOINT FROM, YOU KNOW, WIND BLOWING RAIN AND, AND THE ELEMENTS COMING THROUGH THAT VERTICAL PLANE. DO YOU HAVE ADEQUATE PHYSICAL BARRIER THERE? I'M SORRY, THE, THE SIGHTING GOING BEHIND THE TRIM? NO, IT DOES NOT. I'M I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OLD SIDING THE SIDE. YEAH. THIS DOES NOT, NOT THIS WAS, THIS WAS A IT DOES NOT. OKAY. SO MY VINYL, NO, THE PICTURES THAT YOU HAVE, BECAUSE NOBODY HAS PICTURES OTHERWISE, IS THERE'S ACTUALLY VINYL SIDING WRAPPED OVER WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE. SO IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT THICKER AND THE PICTURES YOU HAVE, UH, VERSUS WHAT WAS, WHAT IS THERE NOW. BUT IT WAS JUST BUTTED UP TO THE EDGE OF, UM, THE, UM, SIDING OR TRIM THAT'S THERE. NOW TO CLARIFY FOR THE APPLICANT'S, UH, REPRESENTATIVE, I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER ROMAN IS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE VINYL OR ALUMINUM SIDING. HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC WOOD SIDING. IT WENT BEHIND THE I DO UNDERSTAND THAT, AND WHAT I'M EXPLAINING IS IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PICTURE, IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE IT DOES GO BEHIND, UM, THE TRIM, BUT IT DOES NOT. OKAY. SO BECAUSE IT HAD THE ALUMINUM SIDING WRAPPED ON IT, ONCE YOU PULLED THE ALUMINUM SIDING OFF, THAT'S WHAT WAS COVERING THE GAP BETWEEN THE SIDING AND THE, THE WINDOW TRIM. OR YOU MAY BE EVEN ABLE TO SEE THE GAP BETWEEN IT THERE. OKAY. SO I GUESS, UH, FOR MY PUBLIC COMMISSIONERS, THE REASON I WAS ASKING THIS QUESTION IS BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A STIPULATION TO ADD THAT ONE BY MATERIAL IN [03:00:01] THIS TRIM AREA, UM, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT TO ADD IT TO ALL THE WINDOWS AND DOORS JUST AS A, UH, CO CONTINUITY THING, BUT ALSO A FUNCTIONAL THING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HOUSE. UM, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. UH, CAN STAFF GO TO PHOTO NUMBER NINE, PLEASE? SURE. SO, MR. CUP, THE, THE SIDING THAT WE SEE TODAY IS PUT OVER THIS OLD SIDING, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. IT'S OKAY. SO THE OLD SIDING IN THIS PHOTO LOOKS LIKE IT GOES BEHIND THE WINDOW TRIM. THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING THERE. THAT WINDOW TRIM YOU'RE LOOKING AT IN THAT PICTURE HAS ALUMINUM SIDING ON IT STILL, AND IT DOES GO BEHIND THE ALUMINUM PIECE THAT'S THERE. ONCE WE PULLED OFF THE ALUMINUM PIECE, THERE IS A GAP BETWEEN THE SIDING AND THE WINDOW TRIM. OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER LFO? YES, SIR. UH, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BOWMAN. I THINK THE, UH, ADDITIONAL WINDOW TRIM SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL WINDOWS ON THE HOUSE JUST FOR UNIFORMITY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? UH, YES. WELL, OH, YES, MR. PUP. YES. UM, I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO DO WHAT I CAN, UM, TO HELP APPEASE THIS SITUATION AND GET IT FINISHED. IF IT WAS JUST THREE WINDOWS IN THE FRONT AND THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO DO, THAT'S FINE. I'M NOT WILLING TO DO THE WHOLE HOUSE ALL THE WAY AROUND AND CHARGE MY CUSTOMER, UM, OR PUT IN LABOR AND TIME ON MY BEHALF TO DO SUCH A THING. ON ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, YOU SHOULD BE TRYING TO APPEASE ME. Y'ALL MADE THE MISTAKE, PERMITTING MADE THE MISTAKE. I DID WHAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO. EVEN THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UM, MADE MISTAKES. UM, BEFORE THE LAST HEARING. UH, MR. FAM HAD TOLD ME THAT THIS WAS JUST, UH, TECHNICALITY OF BE FIVE MINUTES AND BE APPROVED. AND I DO HAVE THAT ON THE RECORDING. UM, NOW WE'RE GOING FROM, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE, THE ROOF TO THE ROOF'S. OKAY. TO NOW THE SIDING. UH, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE SIDING NOW THE WORK IS IN GOOD QUALITY CRAFTSMANSHIP. IT'S THE SAME TYPE OF MATERIAL. UM, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO HERE TO, TO REMEDY THE SITUATION BESIDES GO TO LITIGATION. I MEAN, IF Y'ALL WANT ME TO REPLACE THE SIDING OR MR. SARAH THIS GRANDMA ALL THE WAY AROUND THE HOUSE, THEN Y'ALL SHOULD FLIP THE BILL. 'CAUSE YOU'RE THE ONES THAT MADE THE MISTAKE, NOT ME OR MY CUSTOMER. YOU KNOW, MR. VASQUEZ, UH, AT THE LAST HEARING SPOKE HIGHLY ON THE WORD NEGLIGENCE AND SAID THAT IT WOULD BE PUT ON MY RECORD. NO, IT SHOULD BE PUT ON YOUR RECORD. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. COBB. UH, COMMISSIONER GROUP. I DO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS A A POINT IN THIS. UM, AND I ACTUALLY DON'T MIND LEAVING THE SIGHTING AS THE APPLICANT HAS IT TODAY, BECAUSE KNOWING THAT THE ORIGINAL SIGHTING IS STILL THERE AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN DONE ANY MODIFICATIONS, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED REVERSIBLE. SO AS SOON AS THAT NEW SIDING IS TO BE REMOVED LATER, WE STILL HAVE THE ORIGINAL WINDOW FRAMES AND WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL WOOD SIDING THERE. I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE ROOF, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE D R C VISIT ON THE ROOF. CO COMMISSIONER, I MEAN, UH, CHAIR, MR. CHAIR? YES, SIR. I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT WHAT COMMISSIONER GRU JUST SAID IS, IS, IS REALLY VERY THOUGHTFUL. IF, IF SHE WAS TO PUT THAT IN A MOTION, I, I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT. I, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT, THAT THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS REALLY, UH, UH, THE, THE COMPOUNDED RESULT OF NOT BEING EVEN MORE THOUGHTFUL THE LAST TIME WHEN THIS GENTLEMAN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THIS WAS NOT HIS FAULT. SO, UM, COMMISSIONER GROOVE, IF YOU PUT THAT IN A MOTION, I, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION PARTICULARLY. I JUST WANNA HEAR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ROOF AS I JUST COMMENTED, UH, ON THE D R C VISIT, IF, WAS THERE ANYTHING COMMENT ON THE ROOF? THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. UH, I AGREE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SAID EARLIER THAT, UH, THE SHINGLE ROOF WE THOUGHT WAS, UM, AN ACCEPTABLE FOR THE STYLE OF THE HOUSE. I MUST ADMIT THAT, MISSED THAT. SO I'M READY FOR A MOTION. [03:05:01] WELL, I I DO HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT. UH, THIS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN, IF I MAY. UM, SO MY COMMENTS REGARDING THE TRIM WERE, UH, STRICTLY BASED ON, UH, PROTECTING THE CONTRACTOR, UM, FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ISSUES. UH, WE DO HAVE, UH, A VERTICAL JOINT THERE THAT IS, UH, HISTORICALLY PROTECTED BY TRIM FROM, YOU KNOW, WIND BLOWN PRESSURE SYSTEMS. AND THAT'S WHY IT'S THERE. IN THIS SITUATION, THERE IS NO PROTECTION ALONG THAT ENTIRE VERTICAL JOINT IN ANY OF THESE INSTANCES, UM, TO THE SUBSTRATE OF THIS BUILDING, WATER INFILTRATION WILL BE AN ISSUE. UM, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT HE'S COMFORTABLE WITH HIS CONSTRUCTION THERE BECAUSE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ON RECORD AND THIS IS AN, UH, SOMETHING THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND HE FIX BECAUSE THIS WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GRU, YOU READY FOR YOUR, UH, MOTION? I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM ONE AND TWO AS SUBMITTED. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL PLEASE FISH. AYE, UM, WE CAN YOU MUTE ON YOUR END? THANKS GIBBS. AYE. QUEZ? AYE. AREOLA? AYE. AYE. ZOOMER ON? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE GROUP? AYE. BOWMAN, NAY, ZER. AYE. LA NAYYY? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OKAY, ITEM 23, UH, EDWARD. [23. 21-3135 Address/Description: 119 FLOSS RD HDRC Case No.: 2021-026 Landmark Name: Mission San Jose Historic District Name: Mission Applicant: Rene Cortez/CORTEZ RENE G & LAURA B Request: Construction of an addition and accessory structure City Council Dist.: 3] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 23 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 0 2 6 1 19. FLO, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE CONSTRUCTING ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE TO FEATURE APPROXIMATELY 2,400 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE, AND TWO, CONSTRUCT A DETACHED CARPORT AND WORKSHOP STRUCTURE TO FEATURE AN OVERALL FOOTPRINT OF APPROXIMATELY 1,230 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPOSED DETACHED STRUCTURE WILL BE LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEMS ONE AND TWO BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH J WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION SETBACK BE INCREASED TO 50% OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. SETBACK IS NOTED IN FINDING D AND THAT A LOWER TRANSITIONAL ROOF FORM BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND THE ADDITION BE USED IS NOTED IN FINDING F TO THE EXISTING FRONT DOOR. THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE BE MAINTAINED. THREE, THAT THE STANDING SEA METAL ROOF FEATURES SMOOTH PANELS THAT ARE 18 TO 21 INCHES IN WIDTH SEAMS THAT ARE ONE TO TWO INCHES IN HEIGHT. THE C CRIMP BRIDGE SEMEN, A STANDARD GAL WOUND FINISH BRIDGE CAP, IS NOT TO BE USED. STAFF FINDS THAT A WOOD OR METAL GARAGE DOOR SHOULD BE USED. VINYL IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE MATERIAL. THREE, EXCUSE ME, WOOD WINDOWS AND MATCH THE PROFILE OF THOSE FOUND AND THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE BE USED. THE STRUCTURES WOOD WINDOWS ARE NO LONGER, NO LONGER EXIST AND HAVE BEEN REPLACED. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT WOOD OR ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS BE INSTALLED THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND ADDITIONS AS NOTED IN THE APPLICABLE CITATION. UH, FIVE, THAT WOOD SIDING BE USED TO MATCH THAT WHICH IS FOUND ON THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE OR THAT THE COMPOSITE SIDING BE USED AT FEATURES AND EXPOSURE OF FOUR INCHES I THICKNESS OF THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH MIRE CORNERS OR CORNER TRIM. AND A SMOOTH FINISH IS NOTED IN FINDING J AND SIX THAT THE PROPOSED GARAGE DOOR BE WOOD OR METAL AND CONSTRUCTION. I HAVE THE APPLICANT MR. RENEE CORTEZ ON THE LINE NOW. UH, GOOD EVENING. UM, UH, RENEE AND LAURA CORTEZ, MY BETTER HALF. UH, HELLO. UH, WE'RE CURRENTLY ON THE LINE. UH, JUST AS FAR AS A COMMENT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE APPRECIATED OVER THE, OVER THE TWO SESSIONS WE HAD WITH THE DRCS. UH, WE APPRECIATE THE GUIDANCE AND WE REALLY TOOK THE, UH, THE GUIDANCE TO SIMPLIFY THE DESIGN AND EMPHASIZED THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OF THE HEART. AND WE REALLY BELIEVE, UM, FROM THAT GUIDANCE WE'RE, WE'RE ENDING UP WITH THE DESIGN THAT, UH, THAT WE VERY MUCH, UH, ARE EMBRACING AND, UH, AND THE LIKE, VERY MUCH SO. WE AGAIN, UH, THINK, WANT TO THANK THE, UH, UH, ALL THE DIALOGUE AND RECOMMENDATIONS TODAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE, UH, CITIZEN COMMENTS? YES, SIR. UM, PATTY ZIONS, CONSERVATION SOCIETY [03:10:01] OF SAN ANTONIO STRONGLY OPPOSES THE OVERSIZED EDITION PROPOSED FOR THE HOUSE AT ONE 19 FLOSS ROAD. PROPOSED EDITION IS TWICE THE WEATHER OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND OVERWHELMS IT AND PLAN AN ELEVATION REGARDLESS OF SETBACK. THE ADDITION SHOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND HEIGHT AND WIDTH. MOREOVER, THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR THE INTERIOR OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. WE DO NOT SUPPORT ENCLOSURE OF THE ORIGINAL FACADE OPENINGS AND RELOCATION OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE. THIS PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. THANK YOU. UH, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? MR. CHAIR, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. I WANT TO, UH, JUST, UH, COMMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE DRCS. WE'VE HAD, UH, A FEW SESSIONS WITH THIS, UH, APPLICANT. OF COURSE, THIS PROJECT ALSO CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND MUCH OF WHAT WE'RE WE SEE AS PRESENTED TODAY IS THROUGH, UH, THE BACK AND FORTH IN CONSULTATION WITH THIS APPLICANT. UH, THE PRIMARY, UM, ITEM THAT, UH, WAS, UH, THE CENTRAL FOCUS OF, OF, UH, MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION WAS THAT, UH, UH, THE, UH, APPLICANT WAS WILLING AND, UH, UH, VERY PROACTIVE IN, IN COMING UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT ENABLES THE HISTORIC TINY HOME TO STAND OUT IN FRONT OF THIS BUILDING WHILE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS A, AN ADDITION OF SCALE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. UM, AT THE END OF THIS, AT THE END OF THIS PROCESS, I THINK THERE'S NUMEROUS COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DRCS. I THINK, UH, YOURSELF, UH, MR. CHAIR WERE, UH, WERE INVOLVED IN THE D R C, UM, AND, UH, I, I, I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS, UH, UH, A PRESENTATION THAT IS SPEAKING, UH, UH, THE, UH, CANDIDATE CAN AGREED UPON SOLUTIONS OR AT LEAST THE RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS, UH, FOR, UH, THIS, UH, THIS APPLICATION. SO WITH RESPECT TO THE DRCS, I JUST WANT TO GIVE THAT REPORT THAT, THAT THIS HAS GONE THROUGH SEVERAL PROCESSES WITH COMMISSIONERS TO GET IT TO THIS POINT. AND, UM, UH, THE, THE, THE ONE MAIN OBJECTIVE WAS TO MAKE, UH, WHATEVER OCCURRED, OCCUR BEHIND THIS, THIS TINY HOUSEHOLD. SO ALMOST TO CREATE A, CREATE IT AS AN ARTIFACT OF WHAT WAS THERE, AND THEN SECONDLY, TO UNDERSTAND THE SCALE OF THIS LAND AND TO HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING WITH THE, THAT THE HOUSE IS NOT WITHOUT THE HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE USE OF THAT LAND, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS DIFFERENT NOW. AND, UH, THAT IS IN A VERY, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, OR VERY OPEN, UH, ENVIRONMENT IN THE CITY. OKAY. THAT'S MY REPORT. THANK YOU MR. CORTEZ. UM, COULD YOU ADDRESS OR COMMENT ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THEM OR WHETHER YOU'D LIKE TO, UM, CONTEST OR, OR DISCUSS THEM? AS FAR AS THE OVERALL RECOMMENDATION? I MEAN, I, I, I KNOW WE'VE, I JUST STEPPING BACK, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE GONE THROUGH A NUMBER OF ITERATIONS AS FAR AS THIS DESIGN. YOU KNOW, WE'VE GONE THROUGH A NUMBER, QUITE A BIT OF ANALYSIS OF, YOU KNOW, UH, IN COMPARING WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO THIS VERY ECLECTIC NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE'RE IN. UM, AND, BUT AS FAR AS, UH, THE, AND I'M SORRY, WHAT EXACTLY IS THE RECOMME, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WHAT, WHAT WAS JUST READ IN TERMS OF, UH, WHAT MR. HALL JUST STATED? YES, SIR. UM, ONE THAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE, UH, ADDITION BE MOVED FURTHER SET, SET BACK FURTHER, AND THE EXISTING FRONT DOOR ON THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE BE MAINTAINED. I BELIEVE YOU'LL, YOU STATED THAT YOU'LL MATCH THE STANDING SCENE, METAL ROOF AND WINDOW AND SIDING DETAILS THAT ARE STANDARD RECOMMENDATIONS. YEAH. AS FAR AS THE, THE, THE SETBACK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, UH, THERE WAS ALREADY, UH, A SIGNIFICANT SETBACK ON THE STRUCTURE. ACTUALLY, THE, THE STRUCTURE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE PULLED UP RIGHT NOW, BUT MR. HALL, BUT, UH, WE MOVED IT BACK. IT'S GOTTA BE AT LEAST 10, 10 TO 14 FEET TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE DOES [03:15:01] HAVE ITS PROMINENCE. UM, UH, BUT AS FAR AS GOING BACK EVEN FURTHER, UH, WE HAVE RESTRICTIONS IN THE BACK OF WHERE WE LIVE. WE HAVE SOME MASONRY WORKS, UH, THAT, UH, PROHIBITS US FROM GOING ANY FURTHER BACK, UH, IN THAT AREA. UM, BUT, UH, SO AS FAR AS STEPPING BACK, I FEEL OUR, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAVE, THERE'S CRITERIA THAT WAS MENTIONED OR PROVIDED TO US DURING THE D R C MEETINGS, AND WE HAVE EITHER MET OR EXCEEDED THOSE, UH, THOSE REQUESTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. WHAT ABOUT KEEPING THE EXISTING FRONT ON THE HISTORIC HOUSE, BUT THAT, BUT THAT'S A NEW COMMENT TO US, UH, THAT, THAT, UH, I'M JUST PAUSING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEN OUR, OUR PLAN WAS TO CLOSE THAT OFF, BUT WE CAN CREATE A, A TURN WITH AN EXISTING TINY LIVING ROOM INTO A BEDROOM. UM, AND THAT WAS THE REASON WE WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND, AND CLOSE THAT DOOR AND SHIFT THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE HOUSE, UH, MORE TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE OVERALL NEW STRUCTURE. STAFF CAN CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT ON THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UM, THE INTERIOR SPACE CAN BE USED AS, AS NEEDED. UM, AND, AND IF NEEDED, THE DOOR DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE, UH, FUNCTIONAL IN THE SENSE OF YOU WOULD HAVE AN ACTUAL IN AND OUT ENTRANCE, UM, WITHIN THAT BEDROOM. OUR PRIMARY CONCERN IS THAT WE WANT THE, THE MAIN OR THE ORIGINAL EXISTING ENTRANCE TO THE HOUSE TO STILL IN SOME SENSE READ AS THAT FROM THE EXTERIOR. UM, THAT WAY IT'S, IT'S JUST ANOTHER ELEMENT THAT DISTINGUISHES THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE FROM THE ADDITION. OKAY. I, I MEAN, THAT'S A NEW COMMENT. UM, MR. MR. CHAIR, IF, IF, YES, I MAY. UM, SIR, THE, THE, UM, IN THE, IN THE MEETINGS THAT, THAT WE'VE HAD, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DISCUSSED. I THINK WHAT, WHAT EDWARD IS GETTING AT WITH YOU IS THAT AN INTERIOR SPACE CAN, CAN BECOME WHATEVER AN INTERIOR SPACE WANTS TO BECOME, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE'S A DOOR ON THE FRONT OF IT, OR THE DOORS CAN BE FIXED, THEY CAN BE MADE NOT TO AFFECT THE INTERIOR OF THE SPACE. NOW, THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE IN A LARGE EXTENT, THAT'S A VERY SMALL DETAIL WITH RESPECT TO, UH, WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF WHAT'S EXISTING THERE AS THE HISTORIC PIECE OF THE HOUSE. BUT MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANT WANNA JUST KIND OF MAKE SURE THAT WE REMEMBER THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE LARGER ITEM, WHICH IS THE ITEM ONE, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT IS REALLY THE ITEM THAT WENT THROUGH VIGOROUS CONSULTATION FROM VARIOUS COMMISSIONERS. UM, THAT, UM, IF, IF, IF IT'S A MATTER OF, UM, OF, UM, THE, THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE INTERIOR OF THAT, OF THAT HISTORIC ASPECT OF THE BUILDING, THAT IT CAN REMAIN INTACT WITHOUT AFFECTING HIS INTERIOR. OF COURSE, IT, OF COURSE, IT AFFECTS WHAT YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE FOR WINDOWS, RIGHT? BUT, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S, I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY SEE THAT AS A MAKE OR BREAK FOR YOU. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK, SIR, THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO COMPREHEND AT THIS MOMENT? IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN THINK ABOUT, UH, VISUALIZE AT AT THIS MOMENT, IS BECAUSE IF NOT, THAT DOES BECOME A KIND OF A SERIOUS ITEM, IS THE, IS THE ALTERATION OF THAT KIND OF RHYTHM, RIGHT? YOU'VE GOT THESE THREE THINGS THAT OCCUR. UH, IT IN TERMS OF PRESERVING ALONG THE LINES OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD, RIGHT? IN TERMS OF PRESERVING THAT ASPECT OF IT, THAT YOU COULD LEAVE THAT FRONT THE WAY THAT IT IS WITHOUT, UM, TAKING AWAY FROM THAT HISTORIC BUILDING DESPITE WHAT HAPPENS INSIDE. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU UNDERSTAND, MR. UH, QUESTION, MR. YEAH. SO, UM, AND I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE, HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS AT D R C. I'M STILL WORRIED. THIS IS THE MISSION HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHICH IS, I MEAN, FAIRLY NEW. WE PROVED THE MANUAL MAYBE A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. UM, THERE'S, FIRST OF ALL, I, I DO AGREE THAT ITEM NUMBER ONE MAYBE COULD BE, YOU SAY YOU HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IT IN D R C. I'LL, I'LL TAKE THAT. I FEEL LIKE THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A, I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND THE PART THAT HE SAID THAT THERE WAS A CONCRETE PAD, BUT [03:20:01] ON THE PLAN IT ACTUALLY SAYS IT WILL BE REMOVED. SO I COULDN'T SEE THAT BEING A BARRIER FOR MOVING IT BACK AND, AND, AND THEN THE ROOF FORM. AND I THINK IT'S PART OF STIPULATION ONE. UM, THAT'S WHY I THINK STIPULATION ONE PROBABLY IS STILL, SORRY. THAT'S IT. YES, A TRADITIONAL ROOF FORM. SO IT'S PART OF STIPULATION ONE, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT, UM, THAT THE ROOF FORM IS TO ME SOMETHING THAT, UM, IS STILL, I GUESS IT NEEDS SOME WORK. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ALSO DISCUSSED IN D R C. AND I THINK THOSE ARE THE ITEMS. THE REST, THE FRONT DOOR AND THE GARAGE DOOR AND THE WOOD SIDING AND THE WOOD MATERIALS, I THINK THOSE ARE STANDARD THAT WE HAVE THOSE IN, IN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. SO I THINK THAT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS THE ROOF. WAS THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN? I'M SO SORRY. I DID NOT MEAN TO, TO COMM COMM. JUST TO COMMISSIONER BRUCE'S POINT, UH, COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, I, SO I KNOW THAT D R C TALKED ABOUT THE FORM, THE ROOF PITCH OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE WAS USED, UH, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE ELEVATION TO PRIMARILY FORM FORM UP THE ROOF. IT HAS BEEN SIMPLIFIED FROM PREVIOUS VERSIONS. UH, I'M, I'M GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE, UH, OF THE ITEMS RELATED TO STIPULATED ONE, STIPULATION ONE AS PRESENTED. I DO THINK THE FRONT DOOR, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED, WHETHER IT IS IN FUNCTION OR NOT ISN'T REALLY AN ISSUE. AND ITEMS THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE ARE REALLY STANDARD MATERIAL REFERENCES SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE HERE. SIX ABOUT THE, THE GARAGE DOOR, UH, BEING LIFTED. I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT, UH, GIVEN THE, UH, LOCATION AND VISIBILITY OF THAT GARAGE DOOR AND THE TYPE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE AREA THAT THAT, UH, IS NECESSARY, METAL GARAGE DOORS ARE COMMONLY FOUND IN THE MISSION DISTRICT. SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN, I CAN MAKE A MOTION WITH STIPULATIONS 2, 3, 4, AND FIVE AT THIS TIME, AND WE CAN DISCUSS ITEMS ONE FURTHER IF WE NEED TO. I'LL SECOND COMMISSIONER FISH. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS 2, 3, 4, AND FIVE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. CHAIR? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER FISH ON THAT. UM, IS THE ROOF, IS IT A TWO STORY ADDITION? IS THAT WHY IT'S 21 FEET HIGH? NO, IT JUST HAS SOME DEPTH. SO IN THE ELEVATION, THE ROOF, THE ROOF LOOKS QUITE TALL, BUT IT IS, IT IS MOVING AWAY FROM YOU FROM THE STREET VIEW. I THINK, UH, PERSPECTIVE TYPE VIEWS SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD BE, UH, IT, IT PROBABLY IS, IS NOT AS AGGRESSIVE AS IT LOOKS IN THE ELEVATION, RIGHT? THE ORIGINAL DESIGNS HAD GABLES ON THAT, UH, CROSS ROOF, WHICH MADE THE ROOF APPEAR MUCH TALLER, AND THE EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS WERE, UH, QUITE A BIT MORE IMPOSING. AND SO DURING THE D R C WE DISCUSSED, UH, FOLLOWING THE EXISTING PITCH ROOFS AND HAVING HIP ROOFS, UH, THERE WERE ALSO SOME DORMERS THAT WERE JUST INTO THE ATTIC THAT ON THE FRONT SIDE, THAT, UH, WE SUGGESTED THAT THEY BE REMOVED AGAIN TO, UH, ALLOW THAT, UH, MAIN ROOF TO RECEDE. AND, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD ADD THAT THE RIDGE HEIGHT OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE IS PARTICULARLY LOW, UH, GIVEN THE REALLY NARROW WIDTH AND THE CONFIGURATION OF THE ROOF, BRINGING THE RIDGE LINE OF THE ADDITION DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY POSES A DIFFERENT SET OF CHALLENGES AND CHARACTER QUALITY ISSUES, UH, THAT WERE, UH, CONSIDERED. YES. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, MS. COMMISSIONER QUEZ, UM, THE, UH, THE PRIMARY, UH, A, A AFTER THE, THE, THE, THE, UM, THE NEW, UH, UH, CONSTRUCTION AFTER THAT, THE MAIN, UH, OBJECTIVE WAS HOW, WHAT WAS PROPOSED AND, AND, AND WHAT WE WERE REALLY, UM, ADVOCATING FOR WAS THE PRESERVATION OF THAT ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AS PRESENTED IN IT, IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF ITS ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, WHICH I DON'T THINK IN, IN, IN TO THE LARGEST DEGREE. I DON'T THINK IT AFFECTS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, BUT IT, BUT WITH RESPECT TO, UH, I, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A STIPULATION FOR IT, RIGHT? THAT, THAT SAYS THAT, THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE, UM, ORIGINAL FACADE OF THE TINY HOUSE, THAT WHAT YOU SEE THERE, THE THREE WINDOWS SECTION. AND I'M WONDERING IF EVEN THE BALUSTRADE THAT THOSE ARE REALLY THE THINGS TO, TO, UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, COMMISSIONER FISH, IF MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT BELONGS IN A MOTION, IN THE MOTION. UH, BUT THE REST OF IT SEEMS TO BE FOLLOWING THE SIMPLICITY THAT WE, WE ADVOCATED FOR OR THAT WE CONSULTED FOR. WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION, [03:25:01] MR. CHAIRMAN, THE APPLICANT, UH, THE, THE SITE, THE SITE PLAN DOES SHOW THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN YES, YES, COMMISSIONER, BUT I'M, I'M, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, BUT WITH, WITH, WITH ON THE VERTICAL ASPECT OF THE FRONT ELEVATION, THAT WHAT IS BEFORE US SHOWS A SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION TO THAT, TO THE, TO THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN FRONT OF US THAT PERHAPS THE MOTION, UH, UH, COULD, SHOULD INCLUDE A STIPULATION THAT HOLDS THE OWNER TO THIS, TO, NOT TO THE SPIRIT, BUT TO THE ACTUAL PRESERVATION OF THAT FACADE THAT'S IN FRONT OF US. I UNDERSTAND AMENDED AS SO IF, IF, WELL, IF, IF STAFF GETS STEP IN, UM, I DO WANT TO ASK MR. CORTEZ, I DO BELIEVE THAT HE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THAT, UM, THE, UH, COLUMN BRACKETS IN THE PORCH RAILING, UH, WERE POTENTIALLY NOT ORIGINAL. UH, MR. CORTEZ, COULD YOU CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THOSE ARE ORIGINAL TO THE STRUCTURE? THE, UM, TRAILING SPECIFICALLY? YEAH, THE RAILINGS ARE NOT ORIGINAL. THOSE ARE CIRCA 2005. AND THEN THE, UH, THE VERTICAL, UH, COLUMNS THERE, UH, THE, THE, THE COLUMNS IN THAT, THOSE WERE PROBABLY PUT IN. I, I TALKED TO THE MEN AND PUT 'EM IN MAYBE LIKE, NO, BACK IN THE NINETIES, UM, BECAUSE THE OLD ONES HAD TO BE, UH, YEAH, COMPLETELY REPLACED. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. YES, SIR. I'LL, I'LL, I'LL STILL AMEND MY MOTION TO INCLUDE THE PRESERVATION OF REMAINING HISTORIC MATERIAL AND ELEMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MR. CHAIRMAN? THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. YES, SIR. UH, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE, UM, SAN ANTONIO CONSERVATION SOCIETY'S COMMENT ABOUT THE SIZE OF THIS. UM, AND PARTICULARLY ASK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE D R C SINCE I DID NOT, UH, ADD THAT OPPORTUNITY. UM, WHEN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FINDINGS, IT SAYS THAT SITE EDITION SHOULDN'T BE MORE THAN I THINK 30 OR 35% OF THE, OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. AND THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHOULDN'T BE MORE THAN 40% OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS HISTORICALLY UNDERDEVELOPED TO BEGIN WITH AND THAT THE, THAT WE'RE SETTING ASIDE THOSE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE OF THAT? I JUST WANNA HAVE CLARITY ON WHY WE'RE IGNORING THE, THE RELATIVE SIZE OF THIS TO THE EXISTING HISTORIC HOUSE CO COMMISSIONER CARPENTER THI THIS, THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT THREE, UH, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, THIS PRO PROPERTIES, UH, LOCATED IN DISTRICT THREE. SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA. THE AREA WAS ONCE AN AGRICULTURAL AREA IN THE, IN THE MOST IMMEDIATE PAST, BUT THEN IT GOES FAR BACK. I MEAN, AS FAR AS, UH, UH, CIVILIZED, UH, SAN ANTONIO GOES RIGHT WHERE, I GUESS IT'S A BAD WAY TO SAY IT. UH, CI IZED OR, OR, UH, MUNICIPAL, ONCE A MUNICIPALITY OR INCORPORATED, RIGHT. FORMALIZED, YES, HOWEVER YOU SAY IT, RIGHT. I'M FAMILIAR, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE, THE DEEP HISTORY OF THIS SITE, BUT, UH, I'M ALSO FAMILIAR WITH THE STANDARDS OF THE GUIDELINES THAT THE MISSION GROUP MADE A GOOD POINT THAT WERE APPROVED IN THE RECENT PART OF THAT. PART OF THAT IS THAT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, WE'RE SETTING ASIDE THOSE REQUIREMENTS. YES, MOST DEFINITELY. BUT I DO WANNA, I DO JUST DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT OR THAT, THAT IT'S ON THE RECORD, THAT THE AREA WA WAS AN AREA THAT, YOU KNOW, HAD, UH, LIMITED MEANS HISTORICALLY. SO, SO THAT YOU DON'T SEE PARTICULAR TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT THERE. NOT BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY, BUT BECAUSE PEOPLE LACK THE MEANS TO DEVELOP. SO IF YOU GO TO PADRE ROAD, IF YOU GET INTO THE MISSION AREA, YOU'LL SEE QUITE LARGE BUILDINGS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE FROM THE AREA THAT ONCE THEY, THEY, THEY RAISE THEIR ECONOMIC LEVELS, WERE ABLE TO BUILD THE HOUSES THAT, THAT PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO BUILD. OTHERWISE, WHEN YOU GET INTO THE ALLEYS AND THE SMALL ROADS, THERE'S STILL STRICKEN WITH POVERTY. SO THERE'S A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE SIZE OF LAND AND THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE. AND SO, SO THIS IS ALSO A MARKER OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THAT COMMUNITY, RIGHT? UM, UH, ECONOMICALLY. UH, AND, AND HOW YOU, YOU HAVE A LITTLE HOUSE ON A BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY. WHY? BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PEOPLE THAT MAINTAINED THE LAND. AND IT'S, IT'S A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT THAN THAT. SO, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE, THE SCALE OF LAND TO THE BUILDING, UM, IT'S STILL A SMALL HOUSE, I MEAN, [03:30:01] RELATIVE TO THE LANDSCAPE. SO YES, THAT WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. COMMISSIONER, UM, I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. YEAH. SO WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH? AYE. GIS? AYE. QUEZ AYE. AREOLA. AYE. ZUMA RUN. NAY CARPENTER. AYE GROUP. AYE. BOWMAN, I BELIEVE WE LOST BOWMAN. BELIEVE WE LOST BOWMAN. THATOR. AYE. LA AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. [24. 21-3037 Address/Description: 402 PEREIDA ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-178 Historic District Name: King William Applicant: FCR Investments LLC Request: Side yard privacy fence City Council Dist.: 1] OKAY. UM, ITEM 24, PLEA. YES. ITEM NUMBER 24, CASE NUMBER 20 21 8 AT 4 0 2 PARDA. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN EIGHT FOOT TALL WOOD PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON THE FINDINGS WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT TERMINATES BEHIND THE FRONT BAY OF THE HOUSE AT WHICH IT SHOULD BEGIN TO TAPER UNTIL IT MEETS THE FOUR FOOT TALL FRONT YARD FENCE. A REVISED ELEVATION DRAWING OF THE FENCE HEIGHT LINE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. UH, I HAVE VINCENT ON THE LINE. UH, VINCENT HAS COMMUNICATED THAT THEY WOULD AGREE WITH THE TAPERING, BUT IS REQUESTING TO ONLY TAPER TO SIX FEET RATHER THAN ALL THE WAY TO FOUR. UH, VINCENT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND CONFIRM THAT POSITION. YES. HI, THIS IS VINCENT FOREY, THE OWNER OF FOUR. UM, YEAH, SO WE'RE, UH, WE'RE LOOKING TO, UH, BRING IT DOWN TO SIX FEET, UM, BEFORE THE FENCE, UH, BEFORE THE GATES, UH, SINCE THE, SO IT'S, THE PROPERTY LINE IS ADJACENT TO A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE BEETHOVEN BEER GARDEN. AND THEY ALREADY HAVE A FENCE RIGHT NOW THAT'S BETWEEN SIX AND SEVEN FEET ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. SO THAT'S WHY WE LIKE TO DO, YOU KNOW, SIX FEET, SEVEN FEET TO KIND OF MATCH THEIR FENCE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. 'CAUSE IF WE DO FOUR FEET, THEN THEY'RE STILL GONNA BE CHAIN LINK GOING UP TO SIX FEET RIGHT BEHIND IT. I BELIEVE THERE ARE, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS AS WELL. YEAH, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A LIVE CALLER. UM, STEPHANIE, ARE YOU THERE WITH LISA? YEP, I HAVE LISA ON THE LINE. LISA, DID YOU WANNA INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND SAY YOUR COMMENTS? YEAH. THANK YOU. THIS IS LISA LYNN WITH THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION. THE KING WILLIAM ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT WHILE THE STAFF SIGNS THAT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AGAINST THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING CONCERN. NUMBER ONE, SINCE THE FENCE WILL BE VIEWED FROM PRUS STREET, IT SHOULD BE VISUALLY APPEALING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. THE SCALE OF AN EIGHT FOOT OPAQUE FENCE IS CONCERNING. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE DESIGN OF THE FENCE INCORPORATE SCALING DEVICES TO MITIGATE THE INAPPROPRIATE HEIGHT IN A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. NUMBER TWO, IT IS NOT CLEAR IN THE APPLICATION IF A HORIZONTAL BOARD OR VERTICAL BOARD FENCE IS BEING PROPOSED. VERTICAL BOARD FENCES ARE MORE APPROPRIATE IN OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. HOWEVER, A FENCE WITH A STANDARD DOG-EARED PICKETS AS SHOWN ON SLIDE 15 AND 16 OF THE APPLICATION IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE. WE CONCUR WITH THE STIPULATION THAT REQUIRES A MORE DETAILED DRAWING OF THE DEFENSE DESIGN BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF . THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, THINK THERE'S LETTERS IN YOUR FOLDER, BUT THAT'S ALL THE LIVE COMMENTS WE HAVE. ALRIGHT. UH, QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, OUR STAFF, SO THE CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT COMES ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE STREET IS, UH, THAT'S THE FENCE THAT BELONGS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, CORRECT? CORRECT. CO YEAH. THIS PICTURE WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY THE PARKING LOT ACROSS THE STREET, RIGHT? I'M SORRY. OKAY. THERE IS TALL, TALL ON THE APPLICANT'S SIDE. OH, SORRY. YEAH. HOW TALL IS THE LITTLE BLUE FENCE OUT FRONT? UH, THAT PICKET FENCE, I THINK IS ONLY ABOUT THREE FEET. [03:35:03] SO THEN THE CHAIN LANE LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT SIX FEET, CORRECT? RIGHT, IT'S SIX FEET WITH LIKE BARBED WIRE RIGHT ABOVE. IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BETWEEN SIX AND SEVEN FEET. THE WHOLE DISTANCE. IT, IT VARIES A LITTLE BIT. OKAY. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT FOR MR. CHAIR? IS THIS YES, MR. UH, MA'AM, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS KIND OF AN UNUSUAL CASE BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S NEXT DOOR. I DO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT THE, THE CONCERN OF, OF THE HOMEOWNER AND SINCE THE CHAIN LINK IS ALREADY ALSO EXISTING. UM, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M LEANING TOWARDS SUPPORTING, UM, AS PRESENTED MR. CHAIR. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GIBBS. YES, SIR. UM, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GROUP. I, UH, THE CHAIN LINK FENCE, YOU KNOW, IS, CAN BE IN, I WOULD SAY IN THE ICE STORE FOR THE APPLICANT AND HAVING THE WOOD FENCE THERE THAT AT LEAST MATCHES THE HEIGHT. SO IT'S KIND OF OBSCURE FROM VIEW. UM, KIND OF MAKES SENSE IN THE SITUATION. AND SO, UM, I I ALSO WOULD, WOULD DEFINITELY PROBABLY BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION BECAUSE I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT THE APPLICANT IS. LIKE I SAID, IT IS UNUSUAL FOR US, BUT IT, IT DOES MAKE SENSE IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN FOR THE APPLICANT. UM, WOULD THEY BE, WILL, SINCE THE EXISTING CHAIN LINK WITH THE, UH, BARBED WIRE IS, UH, BETWEEN SIX AND SEVEN FEET TALL, WOULD THE OWNERS BE AMENABLE TO HAVING IN FRONT OF THE, UH, CROSS FENCE DROPPING DOWN FROM EIGHT FOOT TO, UH, THE SIX OR SEVEN FOOT TO MATCH THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING CHAIN LANE FROM BARBED WIRE RATHER THAN BRINGING EIGHT FEET ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE STREET? UH, YE YES. YEAH, I WOULD BE WILLING TO BRING IT DOWN TO THE, THE SEVEN FEET WOULD COVER THE BARBED WIRE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO. AND IT'S NOT ALL THE WAY TO THE STREET. IT WOULD JUST STOP AT THE, AT THE BLUE, UH, PICKET FENCE RIGHT BEFORE THE SIDEWALK. OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? AND IT WOULD BE VERTICAL ALSO. IT WOULD BE VERTICAL. I HEARD THAT QUESTION EARLIER. IT WOULD BE VERTICAL, BUT, UM, ARE YOU PROPOSING THE DOGEARED 10 SPORTS? UH, YEAH. DOG GEAR IS JUST WHAT, WHAT I'VE BEEN SEEING IN ALL THE PROPERTIES ON PTA. UM, EVEN THE NEWER PROPERTIES THAT BUILT NEW FENCES. SO I WAS JUST GONNA MATCH THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I, MR. CHAIR, THIS COMMISSIONER? YES, MA'AM. MAAM, I, I, I FEEL WHERE YOU'RE GOING AT AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE BARBED WIRE AND, AND THAT'S NOT CONVENIENT EITHER. UM, ONE TIME AND ANOTHER PROPERTY, WE DID APPROVE A SIX FOOT FENCE, AND THEN WE HAD THE POLES OR THE FOUR BY FOURS WERE EXTENDED TO EIGHT AND KIND OF LIKE BUILD A TWO ADDITIONAL FEET ON TOP OF THAT SIX THAT COULD AT SOME POINT BE REMOVED. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS CHAIN LINK AND BARB WIRE IS A PERMANENT THING, BUT MAYBE THAT COULD BE A SOLUTION. I BELIEVE. I, I RECALL THAT IT WAS A, A, UH, VERTICAL BOARD FENCE WITHIN AND THEN UP TO SIX FEET AND THEN TWO FEET OF WOOD LATTICE, I BELIEVE. AND MI MR. CHAIR, I'M, I'M WONDERING IF WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON, IS THE BARB WIRE TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OR IS THE BARB WIRE TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE? IS THERE AN ANSWER? IT'S THE BARB WIRE FENCE IS ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE. AND, UM, ASSUMEDLY WOULD BE TO PROTECT THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND WOULD REMAIN, NOW WE ISN'T ISN'T BARBED WIRE IN THE INNER CITY, UM, AGAINST CODE? OR, OR, OR HOW DID THAT FENCE PASS IN THE FIRST PLACE? RIGHT. I MEAN, IT'S STILL WITHIN THE DISTRICT TOO. I I THINK IT'S BEEN THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME, BUT YOU'RE CORRECT. NEW BARBED WIRE IS NOT ALLOWED, UM, BY CODE, BUT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO REMOVE IT IF IT'S ALREADY THERE. HMM. WELL, UH, I'M READY [03:40:01] FOR A MOTION. YES MA'AM. A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. I'LL SECOND, I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MR. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I JUST WOULD TRY, TRY TO GET A LITTLE CLARITY ON THE MOTION. IS THAT THE STEP DOWN FROM EIGHT TO SIX FEET? THAT NOBODY, I MEAN, HE WAS, HE WAS SAYING HE, THE SIX FEET WOULD END AT THE POST. I KNOW I'M SAYING THE EIGHT FEET AND IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO ADD MAYBE AN AMENDMENT TO, UH, THE SECOND IF YOU WANNA ADD SOME, IF THE ADDITIONAL TWO FEET. RIGHT. BUT RIGHT NOW I WOULD, I WOULD SAY AS THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED, WHICH IS EIGHT FEET ACROSS EIGHT FEET ALL THE WAY ACROSS, I'M FINE WITH THAT. STILL SECOND. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL PLEASE. MR. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, REAL, REAL QUICKLY A QUESTION, SIR, FOR THE APPLICANT, HAVE YOU, UM, APPROACHED THE OWNERS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND ASK THEM IF, IF, UM, PERHAPS YOU GUYS COULD COME IN TOGETHER ON THE, ON THE FENCE SOLUTION THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE APPROPRIATE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR A LITTLE FRIENDLIER TO YOUR PROPERTIES? PARTICULARLY HAS THERE BEEN ANY, UH, ATTEMPT TO, UH, MEET WITH THEM AND, AND SEE IF SOMETHING CAN BE ARRIVED AT? IT'S, UH, KIND A WIN-WIN FOR EVERYONE? UM, I, I HAVEN'T MET THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR. UM, IT, IT, YEAH, I I HAVEN'T MET HIM. NO. I MEAN, I WAS JUST GONNA, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY TAKE CARE OF THE COST OF IT MYSELF FOR, FOR MY SIDE AND HIS FENCE WOULD STAY EXACTLY WHERE IT IS. I'D HAVE TO MAKE MY ASSUMPTION WITH, WITH LIABILITIES 'CAUSE IT'S A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND DIFFERENT REASONS WHY, BUT YEAH. AND, AND I'VE BEEN THERE. I MEAN, YOU GOT THOSE CONTAINERS, YOU HAVE BIG PARTIES, YOU HAVE PEOPLE GOING IN AND OUT OF THAT GATE. I, I WOULD EVEN ALSO JUST, I MEAN, STATE OF CASE OF SECURITY, I MEAN, I MEAN, I KNOW THAT BOB WIRE'S GONNA KEEP ANYBODY COMING TO HIS PROPERTY, BUT I MEAN, I THINK THERE HAS, THERE'S, THERE'S A NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FROM THE SIX TO EIGHT. WELL, UH, COMMISSIONER GROUP OR WITH YOUR PERMISSION, MR. CHAIR? I, YES, YES. I, I DON'T WANT TO COMPLICATE THE, THE SITUATION, BUT I, I SEE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE REGRETTED RIGHT BY, BY THE OWNER. I, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT HE GET THE FENCE THAT HE LIKES ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL HE GETS TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, TO THE ACTUAL FRONT LINE OF THE HOUSE. AND THEN AT THAT POINT, HORIZONTAL, UH, A DIAGONAL DOWN WITH THE PICKETS TO, TO A HEIGHT THAT IS ACCEPTABLE ON FIVE FOOT, FOUR FOOT OR, OR, OR, UH, O ONLY BECAUSE YOU, YOU MAY REGRET A WALL THAT IS EQUALLY DANGEROUS FOR YOU THAT YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE COMING DOWN THE ALLEY, COMING DOWN THE SIDEWALK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT MIGHT BE BAD FOR TRAFFIC AS WELL, BUT AESTHETICALLY, IF YOU GO AS HIGH AS YOU WANNA GO TO THE FRONT OF THAT HOUSE AND THEN YOU DIAGONAL DOWN TO, TO A HEIGHT THAT, THAT I WOULD THINK FOUR TO FIVE FEET, FIVE FEET MAXIMUM, THAT YOU'D COME OUT WITH A, WITH SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA COMPLEMENT YOUR HOUSE. 'CAUSE THE WALL, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S ON BOTH SIDES OR HOWEVER YOU DO THAT. RIGHT. IS THAT SOMETHING THE APPLICANT WOULD ACCEPT? I'LL CHANGE MY MOTION TO THAT. THE, THE ONLY THING I SEE WITH THAT IS MY FENCE IS GONNA BE BRAND NEW AND I'M STILL GONNA SEE RIGHT, RIGHT BEHIND IT, LIKE INCHES BEHIND IT. THE CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH A BARBED WIRE THAT'S SIX TO SEVEN FEET RIGHT BEHIND IT, ALL THE WAY TO THAT CORNER OF THE BLUE PICKET FENCE. WELL, LET ME, LET ME, UH, COMMISSIONER GROUP NOT, NOT, NOT NECESSARILY CHANGE YOUR MOTION IF, IF, IF IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, UH, AGREES WITH. BUT LET ME JUST TELL YOU, JUST FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, IT MAY LOOK BETTER THAN YOU THINK AND YOU MIGHT REGRET WHAT AND TECHNICALLY IS NOT A FENCE, IT'S A WALL WHEN YOU HIT EIGHT FEET. SO JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT AND I'LL STOP MY PART OF DISCUSSION THERE. OKAY? THANK YOU. UH, MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH A GIBBS AYE QUEZ AYE. AREOLA AYE. ERON AYE. CARPENTER NAY RUB AYE BETS. NAYYY LOFO NAYYY. THAT IS FIVE TO FORCE OF MOTION. DOES PASS. MOTION PASSES. [03:45:01] THANK YOU. [25. 21-3099 Address/Description: 129 W AGARITA AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-172 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: CHRISTOPHER VERETTE/CrabApple Designs LLC Request: Fenestration modification City Council Dist.: 1] ITEM 25, RACHEL? YES. ITEM NUMBER 25 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 1 72 1 29 WEST AGARITA. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE TWO WINDOWS ON THE REAR ELEVATION WITH AN ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD CASEMENT WINDOW WITH A FIXED TRANSOM. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS. A THROUGH C STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT REPAIR THE EXISTING WINDOWS IN PLACE. IF THE H D R C FINDS WINDOW REPLACEMENT, APPROPRIATE STAFF RECOMMENDS, UM, STAFF STANDARD STIPULATIONS FOR FULLY WOOD WINDOWS. UM, AS A CASE COMMENT, THE APPLICANT HAS CONSENTED TO INSTALLING FULLY WOOD WINDOWS, BUT WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REQUEST FOR, UM, A CASEMENT WINDOW WITH A FIXED TRANSOM. AND THE APPLICANT CHRISTOPHER IS ON THE LINE. CHRISTOPHER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND MAKE OPENING COMMENTS ABOUT YOUR REQUEST? UH, YES. HELLO EVERYONE. UM, AND THANK YOU OF COURSE FOR HAVING ME. UM, I REPRESENT TOM AND GAIL CERIN IN THIS CASE, UH, FOR THIS WINDOW REPLACEMENT. UM, IT'S ACTUALLY A PART OF AN INTERIOR DESIGN REFINISH, UM, IN WHICH WE ARE MAKING THE INSIDE, OF COURSE, MORE ORIGINAL, UM, AND WAS HOPING TO SAVE TIME, UH, WITH THE EXTERIOR WINDOW REPLACEMENT. UM, BUT ARE DEFINITELY HAPPY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A FULLY WOOD WINDOW AND TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL INTEGRITY. UM, THE OTHER STIPULATION OF THIS IS OF TO OF COURSE, HAVE AN ADDED CASEMENT, UH, AND TRANSOM WINDOW. OF COURSE, ALL OF THIS IS DONE AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. OKAY, THANK YOU. NOT SEEN BY THE STREET. THANK YOU. SO A QUESTION, SO THE SIZE OF THE NEW WINDOW IS SMALLER THAN THE, UH, TWO WINDOWS TOGETHER, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. IN THIS CASE, THOSE TWO WINDOWS WOULD BE REMOVED, RIGHT? AND REPLACED WITH THE YES. OKAY. THE MORE ACCURATE DRAWING OF THESE TWO WINDOWS ARE ACTUALLY NOT ON THIS CAD. UM, BUT THE OTHER WINDOW DOCUMENT COMMISSIONERS, THIS WINDOW HERE ON PAGE 17 IS WHAT IS PROPOSED. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MR. CHAIRMAN? THIS COMMISSIONER FISH? YES. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. IF YOU GET APPROVAL FOR, UH, REPLACEMENT OF THESE WINDOWS INTO A NARROWER WINDOW, WHAT IS THE STRATEGY FOR DEALING WITH THE SIDING? THE SIDING SHORTFALL? UM, IT IS TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL INTEGRITY OF THE OTHER WINDOWS IN WHICH, UH, OF COURSE THIS MARVIN, UM, WINDOW DOES NOT DO. UM, BUT THAT IS THE INTENTION. SO WHEN, WHEN YOU TAKE THESE TWO WINDOWS OUT AND PUT PUT A S A WINDOW THAT'S NARROWER IN, WE CAN KIND OF SEE THE GRAYS, THE GRAY PLACES IN THE PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S AS MUCH AS SIX INCHES ON EACH SIDE. THE, THE EXISTING HISTORIC SIDING IS NOT GOING TO MEET THE NEW WINDOW IN THE SAME CONDITION THAT IT MEETS THE EXISTING WINDOWS OR OTHER WINDOWS ON THE PROPERTY. CORRECT. THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL SIDING, UH, IN WHICH OLD WOOD PINE ACTUALLY REF, UH, RECLAIMED WOOD WOULD BE USED FOR THAT SIDING. AND YOU'RE PROPOSING TO FEATHER ALL OF THAT IN, EVEN IN BETWEEN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A REALLY NARROW AREA BETWEEN THE BRACKET AND THE NEW TRIM. NOT NECESSARILY THE, THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE WINDOW WILL REMAIN THE SAME, UH, HEAD. UM, ACTUALLY THE WINDOW COMES DOWN A LITTLE BIT TO THREE FEET RATHER THAN THE FOUR FEET THAT IT IS NOW. SO I MEAN, I I WOULD JUST SAY THIS. I MEAN, WE, WE LOOK AT, UH, UH, WINDOW CHANGE REQUESTS VERY CAREFULLY, AND IT'S RARE THAT THE COMMISSION SUPPORTS PARTICULARLY WINDOW SIZE CHANGES, WINDOW CONFIGURATION CHANGES BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS, NOT ONLY TO THE CHARACTER OF THE WINDOW, BUT THE, THE AREA INCLUDING THE SIDING AND THE HISTORIC MATERIAL AROUND THE WINDOW. I I KIND OF FEEL LIKE STAFF HAS THIS RIGHT. BUT I'LL TURN THIS OVER TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS FOR QUESTIONS. WELL, TO, TO, TO THE QUESTION THAT YES, SIR. MR. VEZ, COMMISSIONER FISH'S QUESTION TO [03:50:01] THE, TO THE APPLICANT. UM, YOU, YOU'RE GONNA MATCH THE SIDING, RIGHT? IT'S IN OTHER, IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE, IT LOOKS JUST THE WINDOW IS CHANGING, RIGHT? CORRECT. IS IT MY FEELING COMMISSIONER FISH IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST LOOKING AT THE'RE USING A MARVIN WINDOW, IT SETS A PARTICULAR STANDARD AND LINES UP AN EXPECTATION. UH, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A DETAIL THAT'S MISSING OR SOMETHING THAT, THAT GIVES US THIS ASSURANCE OF HOW IT'S GONNA BE HANDLED, BUT JUST WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCT THAT'S BEING USED, IT SEEMS THAT THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE WAY TO USE IT AND FOR THEM TO HANDLE IT IN THE RIGHT WAY. OTHERWISE THEY'RE WASTING ALL THAT MARVIN WINDOW MONEY. QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, WOULD THE, UH, TRIM AROUND THE NEW WINDOW, THE WIDTH OF THAT TRIM AND THE SILL OF THAT NEW WINDOW MATCHED THE EXISTING SILL AND TRIM AROUND THE EXISTING WINDOWS, CORRECT. AS, UM, AS THE ORIGINAL INTENT? CORRECT. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR DOES SOMEONE HAVE A MOTION? MR. CHAIR? I, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT, UH, TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE DO NOT HAVE A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER MOTION? I, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. YES, SIR. TO DENY BASED ON STAFF'S FINDINGS, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER GIBBS, I SECOND. MOTION IS SECOND FOR DENIAL. HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. FISH. AYE. AYE. GIBBS? AYE. VELASQUEZ NAY. AREOLA. NAYYY. ZOOMER ON. AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. GROUP? AYE. FETZER. AYE. . AYE. QUESTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, ITEM [27. 21-3119 Address/Description: 2318 W GRAMERCY PLACE HDRC Case No.: 2021-187 Historic District Name: Monticello Park Applicant: Steven & Lauren Salazar Request: Window replacement City Council Dist.: 7] 26. WE HEAR YOU THERE? YES. ITEM NUMBER 26, CASE NUMBER 20 21, 180 7. AT 2318 WEST SERTY PLACE, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED TO REPLACE 10 DIVIDED LIGHT CASEMENT WINDOWS MADE OF STEEL WITH MATCHING SIZE AND DIVIDED LIGHT CONFIGURATION WITH SLIDING FIBER. WINDOWS BY RENEWAL BY ANDERSON. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF WINDOW REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING B. REGARDING EXISTING CONDITIONS, THE WINDOWS SHOULD BE REPAIRED IN PLACE IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES OF WINDOW REPLACEMENT. STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED PRODUCT RENEWAL BY ANDERSON DOES NOT MATCH THE EXISTING WINDOWS IN STEEL MATERIAL OR CASEMENT STYLE CONFIGURATION, AND SHOULD NOT BE USED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. I HAVE THE APPLICANT. UH, LAUREN ON THE LINE. LAUREN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION? HI. YEAH. UM, SO WE'VE BEEN IN THE HOUSE FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS AND, UM, AFTER THE STORM, OUR FEBRUARY COLD FRONT, UM, WE, I MEAN, OUR WINDOWS ARE JUST EXTREMELY INEFFICIENT. UM, AND IN EVERY SINGLE ROOM OF THE HOUSE, THERE ARE WINDOWS THAT HAVE BEEN, I GUESS THEY WERE ALTERED AT SOME POINT WHEN THERE WERE WINDOWS UNITS. UM, AND YEAH, SO WE JUST WANTED TO GET THE WHOLE HOUSE. I MEAN, WE'RE, WE HAD PLANNED ON DOING THIS IN PHASES, UM, IN TWO PHASES AS, AS FAR AS REPLACING ALL THE WINDOWS. UM, AND WE LOOKED AT THE CASEMENT WINDOWS BY THE COMPANY AND THEY LOOKED EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE SLIDING WINDOWS THAT WE WERE, THAT WE HAD DECIDED ON. AND IT WAS LIKE ABOUT $50,000 DIFFERENCE IN COST, BUT LIKE, IT LOOKS THE SAME AS FAR AS THE CASEMENT WINDOWS. I JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT NEEDED TO BE STEEL. UM, SO YEAH, THAT'S, AND I MEAN, THERE'S FIVE OR SIX HOUSES ON OUR, JUST ON OUR BLOCK THAT HAVE EITHER VINYL WINDOWS, UM, [03:55:01] THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT, YOU KNOW, CASEMENT WINDOWS. SO, UM, YEAH, THAT'S, SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, DO WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS? YES. UM, FIRST COMES FROM DREA GARZA, PRESIDENT OF THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THE M P N A APPRECIATES NEIGHBOR WHO ARE INTERESTED IN NOT ONLY IMPROVING THE RESIDENCES, BUT ALSO FINDING WAYS TO ENHANCE THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THEIR HISTORIC HOMES. M P N A SUPPORTS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WINDOWS TO BE REPAIRED IN PLACE AS THE EXISTING WINDOWS ARE NOT DETERIORATED. BEYOND REPAIR WINDOWS ARE A CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENT PRESENT IN MANY OF A, MANY OF THE ADJACENT HOME AND THROUGHOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND THEIR DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS CONTRIBUTE TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. UM, AND THAT'S IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. YES, MA'AM. UM, YEAH, I MEAN, THERE'S SEVERAL HOMES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE THE, THE ORIGINAL CASEMENT WINDOWS. SOME SOLUTIONS HAVE BEEN TO KIND OF INTERNALLY PUT IN LIKE A VINYL OR GLASS SOMETHING INSERT FROM THE INSIDE, UH, TO KIND OF KEEP, YOU KNOW, HEAT AND COLD. BUT I MEAN, I KIND OF ALSO, JUST BASED ON HOW REACTION WE TOOK ON THE LAST CASE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, COMMENTS THAT, I MEAN, I'M KIND OF A STAFF ON THIS ONE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T SUPPORT A FULL REPLACEMENT CHAIRMAN. THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH, UM, WITH COMMISSIONER GROOVE. YOU KNOW, THE, THE WINDOWS ARE IMPORTANT CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURE. THEY REPRESENT THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, UM, PRE AND POST WAR II WHEN, UH, THESE STEEL CASEMENT WINDOWS WERE STILL BEING, UH, UTILIZED. AND, UH, I HAVE RESTORED THESE MYSELF ON A, ON A 1953 HOUSE OVER IN, IN, UH, NORTHWOOD. AND THAT IMPROVED THE THERMAL CAPABILITIES TREMENDOUSLY. YOU CAN ALSO PUT IN INTERNAL, UH, STORM WINDOW SASHES AS WELL. UM, AND YOU CAN PURCHASE NEW CRANK HANDLES THAT WORK BEAUTIFULLY. SO I THINK, THINK THESE ARE A GOOD, UH, CANDIDATE FOR REHABILITATION RATHER THAN WHOLESALE REPLACEMENT. I WOULD MOVE FOR DENIAL. MR. VERY BRIEFLY, UM, JUST A CLARIFICATION, LAUREN, IF YOU CAN PUT THE, UM, FIRST PAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT ON THE SCREEN, UM, AND ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT. UM, SO JUST, OH, THIS DOESN'T HAVE THE ITEM NUMBER. SO THE, THE AGENDA POSTED, THIS ITEM IS ITEM 27. UM, AND SO OUR CASE LIST THAT WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING DURING THE MEETING IS ACTUALLY HAS REVERSED ITEMS 26 TO 27. SO, UH, JUST KNOW THAT THIS IS AN ACTION FOR A C R C CASE 20 21, 180 7, UH, LISTED AS ITEM 27 ON THE AGENDA. AND WE'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO ITEM 26 AFTER THIS, MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ, THAT'S SECOND COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER'S MOTION. I, I DO WANNA, LET'S SAY THAT, UM, UH, I, I, I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON THE COMMISSION TO AT SOME POINT BEGIN TO ADDRESS THE CHANGING TECHNOLOGIES. NOT, NOT JUST WITH RESPECT TO THE ABILITY TO MANUFACTURE SOMETHING A MORE EFFICIENT WAY, LET'S JUST SAY ON AN INSULATED SINGLE PANE METAL CASEMENT WINDOW BEING MANUFACTURED AS A SINGLE PANE, UH, UH, RECAPTURED PLASTICS PRODUCT, RIGHT? WHICH I DON'T THINK IS EQUAL TO A, A PRODUCT THAT WILL GIVE THE SAME AESTHETIC EFFECT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME OFFER THE, UH, THE APPLICANT IN THE INTERIOR, THE ABILITY TO MANAGE AND CONTROL THE, UH, THE TEMPERATURE OR THE ELEMENTS, UH, THE OUTSIDE TO THE INSIDE. UM, WE COULD IMAGINE THAT SOMEONE MIGHT, MIGHT HAVE A HOUSE LIKE THIS AND HAVE LIMITED MEANS. MAYBE ONE OF THESE BEDROOMS IS WHERE THE BABY IS KEPT, RIGHT? AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO THEM NOT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE AESTHETICS OF THE ARCHITECTURE ALONE, RIGHT? BUT FROM THE QUALITY OF LIFE ON THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE. NOT, I, I SAY THAT WITH, WITH, WITH JUST THE, UH, THE, THE IMPORTANT DETAIL OF THAT. IF A NEW PRODUCT IS ACHIEVING THE, THE ABSOLUTE SAME EFFECT, UH, AESTHETICALLY WHAT YOU SEE FROM, FROM THE CURVE, THEN I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO, TO NOT, UH, UH, UH, CONSIDER THE, THE NEEDS OF THE APPLICANT, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO AN APPLICANT WHO IS CITING A, [04:00:01] A, A, UM, A A TEMPERATURE ANOMALY THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH THAT EVERYBODY CAN SHARE, AND HOW, UH, LITTLE, UH, SOME THINGS MATTER WHEN YOU'RE FREEZING. UM, SO, UM, I JUST, I I HOPE THAT AS, AS, UH, UH, WE, WE, WE GET THESE, UH, UH, CASES IN THAT AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, THE MANUFACTURERS AT B PELLA OR MARVIN OR WHOEVER THEY ARE THAT ARE DOING THEIR BEST TO PRO TO PRODUCE, UH, UH, UH, ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, UM, UH, ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS THAT MEET THEIR CRITERIA OF THE AESTHETICS, I HOPE THAT WE CAN BE MORE OPEN TO, UH, THE NEEDS OF THE APPLICANTS. I, I WON'T BE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION, BUT I DO, UH, I DO UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. UH, MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? FISH? AYE. GIBBS. AYE. VELASQUEZ NA AREOLA. NA ZOOMER ON NA CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP. AYE. BOWMAN. OH, BOWMAN'S OUT. THATER. AYE. UNE AYE. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, SO NOW WE'RE [26. 21-3070 Address/Description: 1933 FREDERICKSBURG RD HDRC Case No.: 2021-181 Historic District Name: Monticello Park Applicant: HECTOR GUEL/MIKES ELECTRIC FOR (CLINICAS UNIDAS) Request: Signage City Council Dist.: 7] GONNA GO TO ITEM 26, WHICH IS, UM, 1933 FRED ROAD. UM, RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE? YES. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 26 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 180 1 19 33 FREDERICKSBURG, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL TWO APPROXIMATELY 150 SQUARE FOOT CHANNEL LETTER SETS WITH L E D ILLUMINATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH D WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE PROPOSED SIGNS BE REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET EACH FOR A TOTAL OF A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE. UPDATED GRAPHICS AND DIMENSIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TWO, THAT THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE FEATURES ALL METAL FACES AND EXTERNAL ILLUMINATION, UPDATED MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS AND LIGHTING PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AND THE APPLICANT, HECTOR GALE, IS ON THE LINE. HECTOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND SPEAK TO YOUR REQUEST? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE AT THE COMMISSION. UH, GOOD EVENING TO COMMISSIONERS AND, UH, TO CHAIRMAN AS WELL. UM, I'M HECTOR GALE AND I'VE BEEN IN THE SIGNAGE INDUSTRY FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, SINCE 2004. UM, AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE CLIENT THAT WE HAVE, UM, THEY REQUESTED A, UH, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO SIGNAGE, UH, PERMIT. AND, UM, THEY WEREN'T AWARE THAT IT BELONGED TO THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT. I INFORMED THEM. AND, UH, SO WE APPLIED, UM, WITH THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT AS WELL. NOW, UM, THE, THE CLIENT IS TRYING TO ESTABLISH THEIR BRANDING AND THEY HAVE A BRAND AND IT'S, IT'S ALL OVER THE CITY, AND THEY HAVE SEVERAL CLINICS AND THEY, THEY'RE TRYING TO ATTEMPT TO, TO ESTABLISH PRESENCE THERE IN, IN, IN THAT AREA. AND, UH, UP TO MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, THE, WHAT Y'ALL ARE CONSIDERATION, WHAT Y'ALL ARE CONSIDERING IS A HUNDRED, UH, SQUARE FEET IN TOTAL, WHICH IS 50 ON ONE SIDE AND 50 ON THE OTHER SIDE. THE BUILDING ITSELF, UM, HAS MORE THAN, MORE, MORE THAN ENOUGH SPACE. AND THE CLIENT IS WISHES AND IS TRYING TO APPEAL THAT. UH, SEE IF IT'S ALLOWABLE BY Y'ALL GUYS. NOW, UH, UH, PATTY CORNER TO, TO THIS, UH, BUILDING THE WOODLAWN THEATER, WHICH IS A HISTORICAL LANDMARK, HAS, UH, OPEN FACE CHANNEL LETTERS AND THEY HAVE NEON, UM, AND, UM, SEVERAL OTHER BUSINESSES AROUND, WHICH IS LA FAMILIA INSURANCE. AND, UM, THEY HAVE, UM, CHANNEL LETTERS. SO, AND THEY'RE PRETTY BIG AS WELL, AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING AND, AND WE'RE REQUESTING TO SEE IF IT'S, IF IT'S ABLE, I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I BELIEVE WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS. SORRY. YES, WE DO. UM, ZIONS CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF FINDINGS AND STIPULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE IN 1933 FREDERICKSBURG, THE SIGN THE SIZE AND MATERIALS SHOULD CONFORM TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. UM, AND THEN ALSO FROM DREA GARZA, PRESIDENT OF THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UH, THE M P N A APPRECIATES BUSINESS OWNERS WHO INVEST IN THEIR BUSINESSES WITH SIGNAGE TO IDENTIFY THEIR LOCATION AND PROVIDE WAY FINDING TO A MULTI-TENANT [04:05:01] BUILDING. LOCATED AT 1933 FREDERICKSBURG ROAD, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH STIPULATIONS FOR SIGNAGE FOR THIS TENANT. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL STIPULATION BE, ADAM, THAT NO ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE BE APPROVED FROM 1933 FREDERICKSBURG ROAD UNTIL A MASTER SIGNAGE PLAN IS SUBMITTED. FOR THE MULTI-TENANT BUILDING NOTE, A MONUMENT SIGN FOR THE BUILDING IS LOCATED ON THE 100 BLOCK OF FUR DRIVE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? YES, MS. GROUP, I MEAN, I'M, I'M, I KIND OF AGREE WITH, UH, THE COMMENTS AS WELL AS STAFF FINDINGS, BUT I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, THE FAMILIA INSURANCE, THEY, THE BUILDING HAS RECENTLY BEEN SOLD. THE SIGNAGE HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT'S NOT EXISTING ANYMORE. MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ? YES, SIR. UH, I'M, UH, IN, IN, IN HEARING THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY'S COMMENTS, IT MAKES SENSE THAT IT WOULD BE TO THE, THE APPLICANT'S BENEFIT TO GO TO A D R C AND MAYBE SIT DOWN AND, AND HELP THEM, UH, UH, UH, PUT THEM IN A SITUATION TO, TO COME UP WITH A, A SIGNAGE MASTER PLAN AND THEN BRING, BRING IT BEFORE THE COMMISSION. UH, IT MAY YIELD BEST RESULTS FOR THE APPLICANT. IS THAT A MOTION? YES, SIR. I MAKE A MOTION TO SEND THIS TO A D R C. I'LL SECOND HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO D R C. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I HAVE A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT. YES, SIR. UH, RELATED TO THE MASTER PLAN, THE MASTER SIGNAGE PLAN, UH, IS THE, IS THE APPLICANT, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SIGNAGE OF THE WHOLE BUILDING OR, OR JUST THIS PARTICULAR TENANT? UH, I'M SORRY. WAS THAT QUESTION DIRECTED TO ME? YES. YES. OKAY. YES, THE, THE, THE CLIENT DOES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT UP THE, THE SIGNAGE AND TO MAKE PRESENCE AND TO MAKE THEM KNOWN. NOW, I HEARD THE COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, 'CAUSE I'VE BEEN HEARING Y'ALL GUYS, UH, AND I HAVE GREAT ADMIRATION FOR ALL OF Y'ALL BECAUSE AFTER I WAS WORKING FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, I MEAN, WE WE SHOULD MAKE IT KNOWN THAT , THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO DOES WORK AFTER HOURS. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, BUT, UM, GETTING BACK TO MY POINT, UM, I WAS HEARING, AND THERE IS NEW MATERIALS OUT THERE. THERE'S P V C AND THEY'RE HOLLOW LIT BACK, UH, UH, CHANNEL LETTERS. THEY'RE CALLED REVERSE P V C CHANNEL LIT, UH, CHANNEL LETTERS. AND THEN THERE'S, UH, ALSO THERE'S WOOD AND THE, THEY'RE RESISTANT. THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE MORE ECO-FRIENDLY. NOW, THE MAJORITY OF THESE, UM, CHANNEL LETTERS, THEY HAVE LEDS, WHICH IS LOW EMITTING DI DIOP. AND THAT THAT IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT MUCH, UM, VOLTAGE JUST TO POWER THEM UP. AND, AND, UM, THERE'S EVEN NINE VOLTS, NINE VOLT LEDS, AND NINE VOLT LEDS ARE NOT EVEN IN THE ELECTRICAL CODE. YOU KNOW, THOSE, THOSE ARE, THEY WON'T CAUSE A FIRE HAZARD. THEY'RE NOT FIRE HAZARDS. THEY'RE, THEY'RE ECHO FRIENDLY. AND THOSE TYPE OF SS WILL BE USED IF IT IS PERMITTED TO, TO, TO PUT THE, THESE CHANNEL LETTERS. UM, THERE IS NEW MATERIALS, THERE'S NEW OPTIONS OUT THERE. A AS AS, I THINK IT WAS COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ THAT WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, UH, FOR THIS. SO YES, THEY'RE, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE TO PUT UP THEIR . ALRIGHT, WELL, THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I THINK A D R C WOULD, WOULD BE ABLE TO FIND THE MOST APPROPRIATE SOLUTION. SO THANKS. THANK YOU. UH, MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FISH? AYE. GIBBS AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. AREOLA? AYE. ZOOMER RUN. AYE. CARPENTER AYE. GROUP. AYE BETS? AYE. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. UM, [28. 21-3115 Address/Description: 244 HERMINE BLVD HDRC Case No.: 2021-139 Historic District Name: Olmos Park Terrace Applicant: Jay Brandon Request: Window replacement City Council Dist.: 1] ITEM 28, WE ALRIGHT. ITEM 28, CASE NUMBER 20 21 1 39 AT 2 44. HER MINE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE 14 EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS ON THE HOUSE WITH MATCHING SIZE AND DIVIDED LIGHT CONFIGURATION WITH SASH FIBER WINDOWS WITH RENEWAL BY ANDERSON. BRAND STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF WINDOW REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING B REGARDING EXISTING CONDITIONS, STAFF FINDS THAT THE WINDOW SHOULD BE REPAIRED IN PLACE IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES THE WINDOW. REPLACEMENT. STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED WINDOW PRODUCT RENEWED BY ANDERSON DOES GENERALLY ADHERE TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOW REPLACEMENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOW SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH MATCHING WOOD RATHER THAN THE PROPOSED WOOD-LIKE COMPOSITE MATERIAL FIBERS, UNLESS [04:10:01] SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. THE APPLICANT, JAY BRANDON IS ON THE LINE. JAY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND EXPLAIN YOUR POSITION? YES, THANK YOU. UH, MY NAME IS JAY BRANDON. I'M THE HOMEOWNER. THERE ARE TWO THINGS WRONG WITH THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS IN MY HOUSE. THE GLASS IS VERY THIN AND DOESN'T IN INSULATE THE HOUSE AT ALL. AND THE WINDOWS ARE LOOSE IN THEIR FLAME, IN THEIR FRAMES, SO THEY FLOWS IN AND OUT OF THEM. SO WHEN IT'S COLD, LIKE IT WAS IN FEBRUARY, UH, THE COLD AIR IS JUST GUSHING THROUGH THESE WINDOWS IN MY HOUSE. AND WHEN IT'S HOT AS IT IS MOST OF THE TIME IN SAN ANTONIO, MY AIR CONDITIONING RUNS CONSTANTLY BECAUSE THE COOLED AIR IS ALL FLOWING OUT THROUGH THESE WINDOWS. SO IT'S WASTING MY MONEY AND THE CITY'S ELECTRICITY. AND I WANNA REPLACE THE WINDOWS WITH DOUBLE PANED WINDOWS THAT WILL BE MUCH MORE EFFICIENT AND WILL SAVE ENERGY. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT I REPAIR THE WINDOWS IN PLACE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. I TOLD YOU THE TWO PROBLEMS WITH MY WINDOWS. SO REPAIRING THEM IN PLACE WOULD MEAN I NEED TO REPLACE THE GLASS WITH DOUBLE PANNED GLASS, AND I'D HAVE TO REPLACE THE FRAMES WITH FRAMES THAT FIT IN THE SPACE, WHICH MEANS I'D HAVE TO REPLACE THE WHOLE WINDOW, WHICH IS WHAT I'M PROPOSING TO DO. I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ONSITE INSPECTION IN MY HOUSE, AND I, I DON'T THINK THAT EVER HAPPENED. THE, THE, THE SIGN, THE NOTICE OF THIS HEARING JUST APPEARED IN MY YARD A WEEK AGO WHEN I WASN'T HERE. CERTAINLY NO ONE EVER CAME INSIDE TO FEEL HOW THE AIR COMES THROUGH THE WINDOWS AND, AND HOW THEY RATTLE IN THEIR FRAMES. THE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS ARE GOING TO LOOK JUST LIKE THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE, THAT PICTURE OF THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE, YOU CAN SEE THE MOST PROMINENT WINDOW IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE BEFORE THAT, AT ANYWAY, YOU CAN SEE THE MOST PROMINENT WINDOW IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS THE BIG PICTURE WINDOW, UH, IN THE LIVING ROOM. AND I'M NOT GOING TO REPLACE THAT WINDOW. SOMEBODY BEFORE ME REPLACED IT. IT'S A VERY GOOD WINDOW. IT'S, UH, THICK GLASS. IT FITS TIGHTLY IN THE FRAME. AND, UH, I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE ALL THE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS ARE MODELED ON THAT WINDOW. YOU CAN ALSO SEE AT THE BACK OF MY HOUSE, THEY'RE, I'M NOT GONNA REPLACE THAT, THAT ROW OF DOOR WINDOWS EITHER. THOSE ARE VERY GOOD WINDOWS. THEY WERE DOUBLE PANE. SOMEBODY ADDED THOSE BEFORE ME. SO I AM GOING TO USE THE WINDOWS I'M NOT REPLACING AS MODELS, AND I'M GONNA MODEL ALL THE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS ON THOSE. AND I TOLD THE SALESMAN FROM RENEWAL BY ANDERSON THAT IF YOU FOLLOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT MEANS I HAVE TO SPEND EVERY WINTER FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE SHIVERING AND MISERABLE. AND I HAVE TO SPEND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS MORE UNNECESSARY DOLLARS ON ENERGY COSTS AND WASTE A LOT OF ENERGY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, ALL OF US CAN ILL AFFORD BASED ON HOW POORLY THE TEXAS POWER GRID IS MANAGED. I'M ALSO PLANNING TO RETIRE EARLY NEXT YEAR, WHICH MEANS I WILL HAVE, YOU KNOW, A FIXED BUDGET. AND SO HAVING REDUCED ENERGY COSTS WOULD REMOVE A BURDEN FROM THAT BUDGET. AND ALSO IT WOULD MEAN I'M NOT WASTING ENERGY. UM, I LOVE THIS HOUSE I BUILT, I BOUGHT THIS HOUSE SIX YEARS AGO BASED MAINLY ON THE WAY IT LOOKS. I LOVE THIS STYLE. BEFORE THIS HOUSE, I LIVED IN A HOUSE ON TUXEDO THAT WAS BUILT BY THE SAME BUILDER AND AROUND THE SAME TIME PERIOD. MR. THORMAN, I'M NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE THE FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THIS HOUSE. I JUST WANNA BE COMFORTABLE AND ENERGY EFFICIENT IN IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS. I, I'M NOT AWARE THAT WE DO. OH, IT MUST HAVE BEEN A LETTER. YES. IN THE PACKET. UM, QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS? UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. YES, MA'AM. SO, UM, I MEAN, NORMALLY WHEN WE LOOK AT WINDOWS, WE ALSO, BEFORE WE APPROVE A FULL REPLACEMENT, WE REALLY LOOK AT THE STATE OF THE WINDOWS. UM, YOU MENTIONED THAT NOBODY HAD COME. SO WHAT STAFF DOES IS THEY COME AND, UM, AND LOOK AT YOUR HOUSE, I GUESS EXTERIORLY. 'CAUSE THOSE ARE THE PICTURES THAT WE SENT, OR I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF HAS ACTUALLY VISITED, BUT THE PICTURES TELLS US THAT THE WINDOWS SEEM TO BE IN A, IN A FAIRLY GOOD SHAPE. THAT CAN BE, UM, THAT CAN BE REPAIRED. I THINK, YOU KNOW, GLAZING, I I I HAVE REPAIRED AND PAINTED ALL MY WINDOWS IN MY HOUSE, AND THAT HAS HELPED. I MEAN, IT'S JUST REPLACING GLAZING AND PAINTING, AND THEN IT'S A HEAVY JOB, BUT IT'S ALSO LESS EXPENSIVE THAN DOING A FULL REPLACEMENT. [04:15:01] SO, I MEAN, HAVE YOU, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THAT OPTION? NO, I HAVEN'T. I, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT REALLY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST REPLACING THE GLASS IN THE EXISTING FRAMES? I MEAN, UH, REPLACING THE GLASS, I DON'T RECOMMEND THE GLASS IS ACTUALLY, IS PROBABLY A PRETTY GOOD GLASS. BUT, UM, WHAT THEY, I MEAN, THERE'S PAINTERS OUT THERE IN CARPENTER AND, AND PEOPLE THAT CAN, UM, REPAIR WINDOWS, WHICH MEANS REPLACE THE SEALS, REPLACE THE GLAZING AND, AND REPAINT THEM, AND THAT SEALS THEM UP. YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF DOES THEM MAKE WORK BETTER, FUNCTION BETTER, AND SEAL YOUR HOUSE. UM, I SAW THAT THERE WERE SOME WATER STAINS AND SOME CURTAINS. THAT'S PROBABLY ALSO JUST BECAUSE OF GAPS IN WOOD OR BETWEEN A WINDOW AND A GLAZING OR SOME CEILINGS. MM-HMM. . SO, AND IT'S LESS EXPENSIVE THAN DOING A FULL REPLACEMENT, BUT I, I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS DOUBLE PAINT WINDOWS, WHICH I'M GOING TO HAVE PAINTED TO MAKE LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE HOUSE APPEARS NOW. AND BELIEVE ME, THIS HOUSE IS REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE. WELL, I MEAN, OF COURSE THAT IS GONNA BE A LOT MORE EFFICIENT, BUT WHAT WE LOOK AT IS THAT, I MEAN, THESE ARE HISTORIC WINDOWS. THEY'RE PART OF THE HOME, SO WE ALWAYS TRY TO MINIMIZE AS MUCH AS WE CAN, CHANGES TO THE HISTORIC ELEMENTS OF THE HOME. AND THESE WINDOWS SEEM IN FAIRLY GOOD SHAPE. I, I, I CAN'T USE THE STORE MORE AIRCO OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AS BEING REASONS TO, YOU KNOW, CHANGE WINDOWS TO DO A FULL REPLACEMENT ON WINDOWS. UM, THAT'S, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS CHAIR. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AND I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GROOVE, AND I THINK STAFF HAS THIS RIGHT. UM, FROM THE PHOTOS THEY LOOK LIKE THEY'RE RESTORABLE. UH, THE GLAZING PUTTY THAT'S HOLDING THE GLASS IN MAY NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE WEATHER STRIPPING BETWEEN THE OPERABLE SASH AND THE FRAME MAY NEED TO BE REPLACED. UM, AND THAT THOSE TWO ELEMENTS RIGHT THERE WOULD GREATLY, UH, REDUCE ANY SORT OF AIR INFILTRATION AND GREATLY, UH, IMPROVE THE, UH, COMFORT OF THE HOUSE. UM, OTHER COMMISSIONER? QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER LFO? YES, SIR. UH, FROM THE PHOTOS I SEE THESE, UH, WINDOWS LOOK TO BE IN VERY GOOD CONDITION, MUCH BETTER CONDITION THAN SOME WINDOWS THAT WE'VE, UH, RECOMMENDED FOR REPAIR THAT WERE IN MUCH MORE DETERIORATED CONDITION. SO I AGREE WITH PREVIOUS COMMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE WINDOWS, UH, REPAIRED RATHER THAN REPLACED. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. YES, SIR. I CONCUR WITH THE COMMENTS HERE, AND I WOULD MOVE FOR DENIAL. MR. CHAIR, HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. YOU HAVE A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? YEAH. MS. YES, MR. CHAIR. UM, MR. CHAIR, I, I, I, UM, THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO NOTE, YOU KNOW, TO FROM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE, THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE'S TWO CONVERSATIONS GOING ON. IT'S THE CONVERSATION OF THE APPLICANT AND THE CONVERSATION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE, THE, THE COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSION DON'T NECESSARILY REFLECT THE CONCERNS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE CONCERNS OF THE APPLICANT ARE NOT PERTINENT OR RE RELEVANT IT SEEMS TO THE COMMISSION. UM, AND, AND IN, IN THAT, I, I WANNA BE ALSO RESPECTFUL TO THE APPLICANT. AND JUST TO REITERATE THAT IF, IF PELLA OR MARVIN IS PRODUCING A PRODUCT THAT DOES NOT ALTER THE CURB APPEAL OF THE HOUSE IN DETAIL, THEN IT BEGS SERIOUS CONSIDERATION FOR THE CHANGING TECHNOLOGY EVOLVING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF, UM, OF TODAY'S CLIMATE. AND, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY MENTIONED THE, YOU KNOW, ERCOT, I MEAN, I WOULD THINK THAT, THAT MAYBE, YOU KNOW, OUR CRITERIA'S A LITTLE ANTIQUATED. UM, THAT, WELL THIS IS A, THIS IS A MUCH LARGER DISCUSSION THAT I THINK THE COMMISSION CAN HAVE WITH STAFF, UH, INSTEAD OF BRINGING IT UP AT EVERY SINGLE [04:20:01] APPLICATION. WELL, MR. MR, I MEAN, THEY, THEY ARE VALID COMMENTS AND THEY ARE VALID, UH, POINTS OF DISCUSSION. YES, SIR. AND, AND I JUST, BUT, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT I'M CLEAR AND UNDERSTOOD THAT MY COMMENTS ARE NOT TO VOICE AN OPINION NECESSARILY. WE ARE IN OPEN MEETINGS FORM RIGHT NOW. THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO OUR DELIBERATION AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO A CERTAIN EXPECTATION WHEN THAT EVERY PERSON THAT'S OUT THERE IS A POTENTIAL APPLICANT THAT HAS TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW YOU BRING A CASE BEFORE THE COMMISSION. AND SOMETIMES THE WRONG WAY TO DO THAT IS TO WAIT TILL YOU GET IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION, YOU COULD TUNE IN. AND WITH RESPECT TO THAT, I WANNA TELL THE APPLICANT THAT I APPRECIATE THE CONCERN FOR WHETHER AND ANY FUTURE APPLICANT THAT'S LISTENING THAT I THINK YOU NEED TO PRESS THIS COMMISSION. AND THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO ACCEPT BEING PRESSED ABOUT USING A QUALIFIED PRODUCT TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF TODAY'S, UH, STRESSORS. SO I, I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT. MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. MR. FISHER. I'LL DO IT. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER, THE GUIDELINES ARE CLEAR ON, ON HISTORIC MATERIAL THAT CAN BE PRESERVED IN PLACE. SO YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THERE'S A, A MULTITUDE OF CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING HERE. THE REQUEST TO REPLACE WINDOWS, THE CONVERSATION HAS MOSTLY BEEN ABOUT THESE WINDOWS HAVE NOT DETERIORATED, BUT BEYOND REPAIR THE GUIDELINES DIRECT DIRECT US. THE GUIDELINES ADOPTED BY COUNCIL DIRECT US THAT THESE SHOULD BE PRESERVED IN PLACE POSSIBLE. THE SECOND CONVERSATION IS THAT IF THEY CANNOT BE REPAIRED IN PLACE AND THEY SHOULD BE REPLACED, THEN THERE'S A REPLACEMENT OPTION. AND OF YOUR COMMENTS GO TO THAT. BUT I WOULD CALL THE MOTION. YES. OKAY. CHAIRMAN, A ROLL CALL PLEASE FISH. AYE. GIBBS AYE. VAZQUEZ VAZQUEZ NAY AREOLA ARE MR. ALA MIGHT HAVE LOST HIM. UM, ZOOMER ON. AYE. CARPENTER. AYE. RUB? AYE. ZER AYE. LIFO AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. WE [Approval of HDRC Meeting Minutes for April 7, 2021.] HAVE MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 7TH. MR. CHAIR, MOVE TO APPROVE. MINUTE MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 7TH. SECOND. MOTION IS SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. MOTION CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR. MOVE I MOVE TO ADJOURN. SECOND. MOTION TO ADJOURN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. YEAH, . * 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.