[00:00:09]
I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16TH, 2021.
MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE?
[Roll Call]
FERNANDEZ HERE.UM, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, WE DO HAVE A BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING TRANSLATION SERVICES FOR THE MEETING.
UH, CAN WE PLEASE HAVE THE CHAIRMAN'S
[Chairman’s Statement]
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 OF 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.
IN 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 SPEAK, I'M SORRY.
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 BEING RECORDED IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH.
FOR THOSE APPLICANTS OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT REQUIRE TRANSLATION SERVICES, THE INTERPRETER WILL TRANSLATE OVER THE PHONE AS NECESSARY IN AN EFFORT TO HEAR ALL CASES ON THE AGENDA, AS WELL AS TO MINIMIZE THE LENGTH OF THE MEETING, APPLICANTS WILL NEED TO SUMMARIZE THEIR STATEMENTS AND BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION EACH HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO MINUTES FOR THEIR COMMENTS AND EACH COMMISSIONER WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS REGARDING EACH APPLICATION.
APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF ANY TYPE OF PERMIT.
PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ALL WORK.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR WORK APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE EMAILED TO YOU WITHIN 10 DAYS.
NO WORK OF ANY TYPE IS TO BE STARTED WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROPRIATE CITY PERMITS.
AFTER A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK O H P STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TODAY'S MEETING.
UM, JUST FOR EVERYONE WATCHING AT HOME, UM, THE TRANSLATORS ARE GOING TO BE DUBBED OVER THE, UM, LIVESTREAM AUDIO.
YOU MIGHT HEAR A LITTLE BIT OF THAT.
UM, WE HAD SOME VOLUME ISSUES AT THE LAST HEARING, UM, BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN RESOLVED.
UM, WE HAD A FEW PEOPLE REACH OUT TO US AND THAT'S FINE TO DO SO IF YOU CONTINUE TO EXPERIENCE THOSE AUDIO ISSUES.
YOU WILL HEAR, UH, BOTH ENGLISH AND SPANISH ON THE LIVE STREAM ON THE WEBSITE.
UM, SO YOU CAN SEE OUR CASE LIST ON THE SCREEN.
[Public Comments]
COMMENTS FOR SEVERAL ITEMS ON CONSENT.UM, THIS COMES FROM DREA GARZA PRESENT OF THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE M P N A APPRECIATES HOMEOWNERS WHO INVEST IN THEIR HISTORIC PROPERTY AND HOME.
WE REQUEST A STIPULATION AND ADDRESSING THE MATERIAL BETWEEN THE RIBBONS BE ADDED TO THE RECOMMENDATION.
AS THE CASE COMMENTS ARE SILENT ON THIS MATTER, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF DRIVEWAY MODIFICATION BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH B AND REQUEST A STIPULATION WHICH STATES THE GRASP BETWEEN THE RIBBONS BE RESTORED TO ENSURE ALL ELEMENTS ARE ADDRESSED FOR THIS PROJECT.
UM, I WILL NOTE FOR THAT ONE, UH, WE HAVE CONFIRMED WITH THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER AND REQUESTER FOR THAT ITEM THAT THEY WILL RE-INSTALL GRASS BETWEEN THE RIBBONS.
AND SO I BELIEVE THAT ADDRESSES THE, UH, REQUEST FROM THE ASSOCIATION.
UM, AND WE CAN DEFINITELY INCLUDE THAT AS A STIPULATION WHEN WE ISSUE THE APPROVAL.
UM, ITEM SEVEN IS 4 0 4 CALHOUN.
UM, THIS COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS 1 0 7 KING WILLIAMS STREET.
THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO AGREES WITH THE O H P STAFF FINDINGS THAT THE HOUSE AT 4 0 4 CALHOUN MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
QUEEN ANN, WHICH RETAINS MANY OF ITS ORIGINAL CHARACTER FINDING FEATURES SITS ON A CORNER LOT, PROVIDING CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT TO THIS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT.
HILL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATION WILL ALLOW THE OWNER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TAX INCENTIVES AND OTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES WHILE PRESERVING THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF
[00:05:01]
THE STRUCTURE.AND WE COMMEND THE OWNER FOR INITIATING THE DESIGNATION PROCESS.
THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO AGREES WITH THE O H P STAFF FINDINGS THAT THE HOUSE AT 8 28 NEVADA MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION.
THIS BLOCK RETAINS THE VAST MAJORITY OF ITS ORIGINAL BUILDINGS AND THE HOUSE PROVIDES CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT TO HIS HISTORIC SURROUNDINGS.
I DID MISS A VOICEMAIL FOR ITEM NINE.
UM, SO WE'LL PLAY THAT AT THIS TIME.
MY NAME IS FREDERIKA KUSHNER, SPEAKING FOR TOBIN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.
I LIVE AT 4 0 5 EAST MYRTLE STREET.
AT THIS COMMENT CONCERNS ITEM NUMBER 9 6 0 2 EAST DEWEY.
I'D LIKE TO COMMEND THE TORROS FOR THEIR WORK ON THE PRAIRIE STYLE HOUSE AT 6 0 2 EAST DEWEY.
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE MET WITH POLLY TORRO AND DISCUSS THE PLAN FOR A TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE HOUSE.
WE KNOW THAT IN SUCH A VISIBLE LOCATION, MASSING, FENESTRATION AND AND SCALE ARE VERY IMPORTANT, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT WITH A FEW CHANGES TO THE PLAN, THE ADDITION WILL FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE FOLLOWING THE CITY'S HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES.
WE SUPPORT THE REQUEST WITH THE O H O H P STAFF STIPULATIONS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON BEHALF OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M AFTER HEARING PUBLIC COMMENTS TO COMMISSIONERS, WISH TO PULL ANY ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION AND LET US RE YEAH, WE'LL RESHORE THE SCREEN HERE.
COREY, I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM 15.
IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.
I, UH, MOVE FOR APPROVAL, UH, FOR ITEMS ONE THROUGH 14, UH, WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND THE ADDITIONAL STIPULATION BY THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR ITEM SIX.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ.
I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
UM, COMMISSIONERS, I JUST RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM COMMISSIONER FISH.
UM, HE HAS BEEN BOOTED FROM THE CALL AND HE'S RESTARTING HIS COMPUTER.
UM, ITEM 13 REQUIRES NINE VOTES IN ORDER TO PASS.
AND SO WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE NINE WITH, WITH HIM.
UM, SO WHAT WE CAN DO IS, UH, WAIT AND SEE IF IT'S GOING TO, HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE HIM.
UM, CHAIRMAN FETZER, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UH, ADVICE ON HOW TO PROCEED ON THAT? I'D SAY WE CAN WAIT A MINUTE OR SO.
IF NOT, WE CAN PULL THAT ONE AND THEN DEAL WITH THE REST OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SO LET'S GIVE IT A FEW MINUTES.
UM, AND WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, UM, OUR STAFF IS GETTING THE NEXT APPLICANT READY, SO WE'LL BE READY TO GO.
[00:10:08]
UM, WHY DON'T YOU, UH, CALL FOR A VOTE AGAIN, UH, MR. CHAIR? YES, I'D
[CONSENT AGENDA]
LIKE, UH, MOTION A SECOND FOR CONSENT.UH, THANK YOU FOR THE PATIENCE.
[15. 21-4421 Address/Description: 922 E CROCKETT ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-264 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Ligaya Thompson Request: Structural re-framing, window replacement, window repair City Council Dist.: 2]
UM, EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE WITH THAT APPLICANT? YES.UH, MS. LAIA THOMPSON, THE APPLICANT FOR 9 22 EAST CROCKETT IS NOW ON THE LINE.
UM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GIBBS.
SO, UM, I JUST NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON, UM, ON YOUR CASE HERE.
UM, LOOKING ON, UM, PAGE 20 OF THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAD LISTED, OUR FINDINGS AND, UM, YOU HAD MENTIONED, UM, DUE TO, DO YOU NEED TO REFRAME THE ENTIRE HOME AND THE COST REQUIRED TO RAISE THE HOUSE? BASICALLY YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU NEED TO REPLACE ALL THE WINDOWS, UM, AND WHAT O H P IS RECOMMENDING IS THAT, UM, TWO OF THE, THE WINDOWS THAT ARE BASICALLY IN DISREPAIR, UM, SHOULD BE BE PLACED IN KIND.
SO I JUST WANT TO GET A CLARIFICATION FROM YOU THAT ARE YOU AGREEING WITH WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING OR ARE YOU STILL MOVING FORWARD THAT YOU WANNA REPLACE ALL THE WINDOWS? UH, YES, I DO AGREE WITH WHAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING.
UM, WE ACTUALLY MET AND WALKED THE HOUSE TOGETHER AND HE JUST INFORMED ME ON WHICH HOUSES, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, WHICH WINDOWS? UM, WERE STILL THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS IN THE HOME AND WOULD NEED TO BE REMAINED HISTORIC.
UM, SO AT THIS POINT WE'RE JUST GOING TO REPLACE THE TWO IN KIND AND AFTER WE DO, UM, FURTHER REVIEW WITH THE WINDOW SPECIALIST AND GET MORE INTO THE, UM, CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, IF WE DO WANT TO PROPOSE REPLACING THE WINDOWS AGAIN JUST BASED OFF OF SOME OF OUR FINDINGS, THEN WE'LL RESUBMIT ANOTHER REQUEST.
SO, SO JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ONE, THAT BEING SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MAY I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE? MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS COMMISSION CARPENTER I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS.
MR. MCG, I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE.
AYE THAT SIR? AYE LA FIRM? AYE.
THAT BRINGS US TO OUR INDIVIDUAL AGENDA.
[16. 21-4453 Address/Description: 243 NORTH DR HDRC Case No.: 2021-245 Historic District Name: Monticello Park Applicant: Mark Shaw Request: Side gable vent replacement with a window City Council Dist.: 7]
UH, IS THAT YOU RACHEL? HELLO, THIS IS MARK SHOW.ARE YOU READY TO LISTEN TO ME? UH, SORRY, IF YOU JUST, UH, HANG ON.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE, UM, RACHEL, YOUR CASE MANAGER.
I THANK YOU, BUT RACHEL, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU FOR SOME REASON.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 16, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 2 4 5 2 43 NORTH DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE THE EXISTING ATTIC VENT ON THE WEST ELEVATION GABLE WITH THE WINDOW.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH B WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE WINDOW PRODUCT FEATURES DIMENSIONS THAT MORE CLOSELY MATCH THE EXISTING OPENING AND DOES NOT EXCEED THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EGRESS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR
[00:15:01]
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, AND TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS AN UPDATED ELEVATION DRAWING, SHOWING ACCURATE WINDOW PROPORTIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.AND THE APPLICANT, MARK SHAW IS ON THE LINE.
MARK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR REQUEST AT THIS TIME? YES, THIS IS MARK SHAW.
UM, MY DAUGHTER, AMY SHAW IS THE OWNER OF THIS HOUSE OWNER AND OCCUPANT OF THIS HOUSE.
SHE IS A SCHOOL TEACHER AND A FOSTER MOM AND I HAVE BEEN DOING QUITE A BIT OF THE PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF REQUESTS FOR HER.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, HER TIME SCHEDULE IS CRUNCHED, ESPECIALLY DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR.
THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT APPRO IN THE 1940S AS PROBABLY IT'S A TWO BEDROOM, ONE BATH COTTAGE WITH AN ATTIC.
UM, OVER THE PERIOD OF SOME YEARS BEFORE AMY BOUGHT IT, THE, A LARGE PORTION OF THE ATTIC SPACE WAS CONVERTED FROM BEAR ATTIC TO, SHALL I SAY, SEMI-FINISHED SPACE.
UH, BUT NO ONE PUT A WINDOW IN SO THERE'S NO NATURAL LIGHT IN THE WINDOW.
AND FURTHERMORE, AMY BEING A FOSTER MOM BY STATE REGULATION IS NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE THE CHILDREN INTO ANY AREA OF THE HOUSE.
DOES NOT HAVE A SECOND MEANS LEGAL MEANS OF EGRESS FROM THE HOUSE.
SO I WORKED WITH A KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON AT HOME DEPOT AND WE CAME UP WITH A WINDOW BUILT BY WYNN, WHO, WHO, UM, THERE'S, AND I SUBMITTED THE SPECIFICATION TO KATIE, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT STYLISTICALLY IT MEETS WHAT MEETS THE, THE, THE STYLE GUIDELINES.
HOWEVER, THE, THE, THE, UM, AREA OF CONCERN WAS THE SIZE OF THE WINDOW.
QUITE FRANKLY, THE WINDOW WAS LARGER THAN I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE BEEN LARGER BECAUSE OF COST.
HOWEVER, DUE TO THE DEFINITION OF EGRESS FOR SECOND STORY, UM, THE PERSON AT HOME DEPOT AND I WENT THROUGH MULTIPLE SIZES, AND THIS SEEMS TO BE ABOUT THE SMALLEST WINDOW THAT WOULD MEET EGRESS FOR ALL STORIES.
IN ADDITION, I'VE TALKED, WORKED WITH, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I CALL IT G***O OR G***O CO.
UH, AND THEY LOOKED AT THE SPECIFICATION AND THEY SAID THEY AGREED THAT THE MINIMUM THAT IT NEEDS TO BE 5.7 FEET.
THIS WINDOW IS 5.9 SQUARE FEET ON THE CLEAR OPENING SIDE.
SO IT'S LESS THAN 4% LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR LEGAL EGRESS.
UM, SO IN ORDER FOR AMY TO, TO USE THE SPACE AND BE ABLE TO USE THE SPACE WITH HER FOSTER CHILDREN REQUESTING THE, THE SIZE OF WINDOW AND IT, IN ORDER TO HAVE THE SECOND MEANS OF LEGAL EGRESS THERE, I'VE SURVEYED THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR HER HOUSE, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THIS WAS DONE PRIOR TO REGULATIONS FOR HISTORICAL PRESERVATION, BUT IN ABOUT TWO BLOCKS BETWEEN SHE AND, AND, UM, VOL THERE, I SAW SIX AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN MORE HOUSES THAT LOOKED TO BE OF SIMILAR SIZE, UM, OR SIMILAR ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, SHALL I SAY, THAT HAD EITHER LARGE WINDOW OR LARGE WINDOWS.
ONE CASE THERE WERE TWO WINDOWS IN EACH SIDE OF THE ELEVATION, WEST AND EAST, OR DOORS ON THE SECOND STORY.
SO WE'RE NOT SETTING A PRECEDENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A LARGE OPENING IN THE SECOND STORY.
UM, IT ALREADY EXISTS AND AGAIN, THE MAIN REASON FOR REQUESTING THIS SIZE OF WINDOW IS TO RIDE LEGAL EGRESS TO HELP AMY TO USE THE SPACE WITH HER FOSTER CHILDREN.
UM, I THINK THAT PRETTY MUCH SUMS UP THE RELEVANT FACTS.
I I SUBMITTED A COUPLE PICTURES.
THE PICTURE THAT'S SHOWING NOW HAS TWO WINDOWS, MAYBE SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN THE ONE WE'RE REQUESTING, BUT YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE TWO SIDE, TWO WINDOWS ON THAT SIDE.
THEY'RE ALSO TWO WINDOWS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
THERE'S ONE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT HAD THE ONE THAT JUST FLASHED BY A MINUTE AGO.
LOOKED LIKE IT HAD A DOOR ON THE SECOND STORY.
THIS ONE ALSO HAS A SUBSTANTIAL SIZE WINDOW ON THE SECOND STORY.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE WOULD BE WITHIN I THINK THE PARAMETERS WHAT SEVERAL OTHER HOUSES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE IN TERMS OF WINDOW SIZE.
CORY, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? WE DO.
UM, THIS COMES FROM DREA GARZA, PRESIDENT OF THE MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
E M P N A APPRECIATES HOMEOWNERS WHO INVEST IN THEIR HOMES.
M P N A SUPPORTS STAFF STIPULATIONS ONE AND TWO AS NOTED BY STAFF IN THE CASE COMMENTS GUIDELINE SIX B FOUR FOR EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE AND ALTERATIONS.
STATE THAT NEW WINDOWS SHOULD BE INSTALLED TO MATCH THE HISTORIC OR EXISTING WINDOWS IN TERMS OF SIZE TYPE CONFIGURATION, MATERIAL FORM, APPEARANCE, AND DETAIL.
HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? MR. CHAIR? THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE PICTURES OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THERE'S A SLIDE 14 THAT HAS LIKE A WINDOW UNIT AND A GABLE DOES, IS THERE A WINDOW THERE ALREADY? IS THAT WHAT'S SHOWING NOW?
[00:20:01]
YES.UH, THERE'S A PICTURE OF A GABLE WITH A WINDOW UNIT.
UM, WHAT I SUBMITTED WAS A SKETCH OF, I, I BASICALLY USED A PICTURE OF THE GABLE AND SKETCHED IN BASICALLY WHERE THE WIND, APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE WINDOW WOULD BE.
AND THEN THERE'S A PICTURE
YEAH, THAT'S, IT'S ON THE, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
AND THERE ARE, JUST TO SPEAK A BIT MORE ABOUT THE WEST SIDE OF THE HOUSE, UM, THE, THE PROPOSED LOCATION IS BEHIND THE CHIMNEY.
THE HA THE WINDOW WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE ANYWHERE EAST OF THE HOUSE OR DIRECTLY LOOKING AT THE HOUSE.
IF YOU WALK, IF YOU WALK WEST, WELL, IF YOU WALK ALONG NORTH, DRIVE WEST OF THE HOUSE, I WOULD SAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 30 TO 50 YARDS IS ABOUT THE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THE WINDOW BEHIND THE CHIMNEY AND ALSO SURROUNDING HOUSES AND TREES.
THE, THE VISIBILITY OF THIS WINDOW IS, IS IN A VERY SMALL AREA ALONG EITHER NORTH DRIVE OR THE SIDEWALKS ALONG NORTH DRIVE WEST OF THE HOUSE.
IT'S NOT LIKE, IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S GONNA STAND OUT FROM ALL OVER THE PLACE, FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.
I THINK IT WAS MAYBE 30 YARDS FROM APPROXIMATELY THE NEXT DOOR HOUSE TO MAYBE THREE HOUSES DOWN WHERE YOU COULD SEE THE AREA.
SO IT'S, IT IS, I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S INVISIBLE, BUT IT'S NOT VERY HIGHLY VISIBLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW, ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE SCREEN? YES.
CAN YOU SEE THE PICTURE NOW WITH THAT WINDOW UNIT, IS THAT EXACTLY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OR IS IT DIFFERENT FLOOR? UM, I ONLY SEE PART OF THE PICTURE.
THAT WAS THE OTHER POINT I MEANT.
THE OTHER THING I MEANT TO MENTION IS THE SIZE OF THIS WINDOW IS PREVIOUS EXISTING WINDOW AC OH, THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
MY QUESTION WAS MORE LIKE HOW, IS THERE A WINDOW ALREADY THERE AND THE WINDOW UNIT, LIKE THE AC UNIT IS ATTACHED TO A WINDOW? OR IS THERE NOT A WINDOW? NO, THE AC UNIT WAS JUST THE AC THAT THAT WAS DONE BY A PREVIOUS HOMEOWNER.
WE HAVE NO IDEA WHO, WHO DID THAT INTO A MATCHING FENCE.
YEAH, IT, IT GOES, IT GOES INTO, BASICALLY GOES TO THE WALL.
AND THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THE STIPULATIONS.
WITH THE CHANGES THAT THE APPLICANT MADE OF THE HEIGHT AND WIDTH, IS THAT SIMILAR TO THE WINDOWS THAT EXIST ON THE HOME CURRENTLY? WOULD THAT SUPPLY THE STIPULATIONS? YEAH, I, I, I MEASURED IT'S, IT'S APPROXIMATELY THE SAME SIZE AS THE FIRST STORY WINDOWS, I THINK ROUGHLY THE SAME WIDTH, MAYBE FOUR INCHES TALLER AS THE FIRST STORY WINDOWS, UH, ON THE, ON THE, ON THE WEST, ON THE WEST FACADE, THE FIRST STORY WINDOWS ON THE WEST FACADE.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE, YOU'RE AGREEING TO THE STIPULATIONS IF I'M ASSUMING THAT WINDOW WILL COMPLY WITH THE STIPULATIONS AS STAFF AS, AS PUT ON THE RECOMMENDATION? THE RECOMMENDATION I THINK WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS WINDOW TO BE LEGALLY EGRESS BECAUSE ANY MORE THAN A 4% CHANGE IN SIZE OF THE WINDOW WOULD, IT WOULD NO LONGER BE LEGAL EGRESS.
SO THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER THE STIPULATION SAY, UM, THAT THE WINDOW DOES NOT EXCEED THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND OUR APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT RIGHT NOW, THAT WINDOW HE'S PROPOSING EXCEEDS THOSE REQUIREMENTS BY ONLY 4%.
SO I'M THINKING WITH THE WIDTH OF, WITH THE, WITH THE WIDTH OF 33 INCHES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SHRINKING THE WINDOW BY AN INCH OR TWO IN EACH PAN MAYBE.
AND, AND MY, MY HESITANCY IS WHEN I, WE TRIED OTHER COMBINATIONS AND THE FOR FIRST FLOOR, BUT NOT ON THE FLOORS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
UM, I MEAN IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE REAL CLOSE WITH THE STIPULATION PERHAPS THAT THE STIPULATION HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY.
UM, FOUR OR 5% SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME.
SO IF THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS AND MODIFY STIPULATION ONE TO INCLUDE, UH, AN INCREASE IN SIZE NOT TO EXCEED, UH, MORE THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
COMMISSIONER GIBBS, I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
[00:25:01]
CARPENTER.UM, LET THAT BE NOTED FOR THE RECORD GROUP BOWMAN.
[17. 21-4461 Address/Description: 1907 W KINGS HWY HDRC Case No.: 2021-238 Historic District Name: Monticello Park Applicant: Eric Schneeman Request: Driveway replacement and front walkway replacement City Council Dist.: 7]
UM, EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE WITH THAT APPLICANT? YES.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 17 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 2 38 19 0 7 WEST KINGS HIGHWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL.
TWO, ONE, REPLACE THE RIBBON DRIVEWAY WITH SOLID CONCRETE DRIVEWAY, INCLUDING PORTIONS OF FLAGSTONE AND TWO TO REPLACE THE FRONT CONCRETE WALKWAY AND YARD WITH FLAGSTONE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE, DRIVEWAY MODIFICATIONS.
BASED ON FINDING C THE RIBBON SHOULD BE RESTORED AND THE APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT AN ALTERNATIVE DRIVEWAY PLAN WITH PERMEABLE MATERIAL THAT WOULD STILL MAINTAIN THE RIBBON CONFIGURATION.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER TWO, WALKWAY AND HARDSCAPING BASED ON FINDING D THE FRONT WALKWAY SHOULD BE RESTORED TO SIMPLE POURED CONCRETE THAT FLARES NEAR THE PORCH STEPS.
THE APPLICANT MAY RESUBMIT A DESIGN THAT FEATURES A SMALLER DECOMPOSED GRANITE OR STEPPING STONE PATH ACCESS BETWEEN THE WALKWAY AND DRIVEWAY IS NECESSARY WHILE MAINTAINING THE MAJORITY OF THE NATURAL FRONT LAWN.
I HAD THE APPLICANT, MR. ERIC SCHNEEMAN ON THE LINE, UH, THIS CASE WAS RESET OR CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 6TH, 2021 H D R C HEARING.
HELLO? YES SIR, PLEASE PROCEED.
UM, SO I GUESS I'M MAINLY JUST CALLING IN, UM, OUT OF CONFUSION.
UM, AND THIS WAS MY FIRST HOME AND, UM, I WAS NOT REALLY PROVIDED WITH MUCH DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING, UM, INFORMATION ABOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES OR THE, THE NATURE OF THE DRIVEWAY.
UM, AND REALLY ASIDE FROM JUST NOTICING THAT, UM, THE STREET SIGNS GO FROM BLUE TO BROWN, UM, WAS REALLY ALL THAT I HAD GOING FOR ME ON TOP OF THAT IN THE SELLER'S DISCLOSURE, UM, HE ACTUALLY CHECKED OFF THAT NO, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, HE DID NOT SAY THAT THIS BELONGED TO ANY SORT OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
UM, AND MAINLY I WORKED ON THIS, UM, PROJECT AND I, AND I DID THIS, UM, AND I NEEDED TO WORK ON THIS QUICKLY BECAUSE, UM, MY FATHER HAD COME TO VISIT, UH, WANTED TO SEE THE NEW HOME IN MARCH.
UH, WHEN HE CAME TO VISIT, HE HAD A VERY HARD TIME, UM, WALKING ON THE OLD DRIVEWAY, UH, AND THEN MOVING, UM, MOVING FROM THE DRIVEWAY OVER THE LAWN.
UM, SO I WANTED TO GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF, UM, SO THAT WAY HE HAD A PLEASANT TIME.
UM, WHILE THERE, UM, AS FOR THE LAWN, UM, AGAIN, I, I WAS, AGAIN, I WAS NOT GIVEN MUCH INFORMATION REGARDING LANDSCAPING WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND, UM, EVERYTHING I KEEP HEARING FROM, UH, SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEMS FROM SAWS AND WHAT HAVE YOU IS, UM, YOU KNOW, PLEASE, YOU KNOW, LAWNS CAN, WE CAN ALSO DO WONDERFUL THINGS, UH, WITHOUT LAWNS AND, UM, TRYING TO, UH, PUT IN A MORE, UM, DROUGHT FRIENDLY, UM, UH, A DROUGHT, UH, FRIENDLY FRONT YARD, UM, UH, AT THIS POINT, UH, IN THE, IN MY NEED TO MY DESIRE, I GUESS, TO IMPROVE THIS PROPERTY THAT I PURCHASED.
UM, CORY, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? WE DO, UM, DISCUSSED FROM DREA GARZA, PRESIDENT OF THE MONTICELLO MONTICELLO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE MP AND A APPRECIATES THE HOMEOWNERS WHO INVEST IN THEIR HISTORIC PROPERTY AND HOME.
IT'S WITH EXTREME CONCERN THAT WE NOTE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN THE CASE COMMENTS.
THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO MODIFY THE FRONT YARD, DRIVEWAY, AND WALKWAY ON MAY 4TH, 2021.
STAFF WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT FROM MAY 5TH THROUGH MAY 7TH TO OBTAIN MISSING APPLICATION MATERIALS, INCLUDING NOTIFICATION THAT NO WORK HAS BEEN APPROVED ON MAY 18TH.
STAFF RECEIVED PHOTO REPORTS THAT WORK HAD, UH, WORK HAS BEGUN PRIOR TO APPROVAL AND NOTIFIED THE APPLICANT AGAIN THAT NO WORK HAS BEEN APPROVED AND A STOP RECORDER WAS ISSUED.
WORK CONTINUED THROUGH MAY 20TH AND BEYOND, DESPITE MULTIPLE NOTICES SENT TO THE APPLICANT THROUGHOUT THE REVIEW PROCESS.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE SITU, IT IS UNFORTUNATE, UM, SITUATION WHEN AN APPLICANT DISREGARDS THE CITY CODES ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE MONTICELLO PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT, ESPECIALLY WHEN O H P STAFF ENGAGED THE PROPERTY OWNER ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS OF ITEMS
[00:30:01]
ONE AND TWO.UH, QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? ACTUALLY, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, MR. SCHNEEMAN.
UM, THERE WAS, ACCORDING TO THE MON VISTA, I MEAN THE MONTICELLO, UH, PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, THERE WAS A, YOU SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION ON MAY 4TH AND FIFTH.
UH, WAS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER YOU STARTED THE WORK ON THE SIDEWALK AND DRIVEWAY? SO THAT WAS, UM, SO A, A AGAIN, AS I SAID, A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, VERY NAIVE.
UM, I, THE, THE WORK HAD HAD JUST GOTTEN STARTED IN TERMS OF THE CONTRACTOR, UM, BEGINNING TO REMOVE THE DRIVEWAY.
UH, AND I, AGAIN, IT REALLY WASN'T UNTIL MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR WHO HAD JUST HAD A NEW FENCE PUT IN, UH, MADE A COMMENT REGARDING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
AND THAT'S WHEN I DECIDED TO LOOK IT UP, UH, AND TRIED TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION.
BY THAT POINT, THE WORK WAS, AS WE SPEAK, AS I'M SUBMITTING THESE THINGS, WAS COMMENCING.
AND IF I HAD LEFT IT UNFINISHED, IF I HAD STOPPED THE WORK ORDER, UM, THEN, YOU KNOW, IF I, IF I HAD STOPPED THE WORK, THEN AGAIN I WOULD'VE LEFT.
UM, IT WOULD'VE BEEN A VERY SORT OF HAZARDOUS, UM, HAZARDOUS FRONT AREA.
UH, AGAIN, WITH MY, UM, WITH MY DAD COMING WHO HAD HAD, UM, KNEE SURGERY IN THE PAST, HAD VERY WEAK KNEES AND DIFFICULTY WALKING ON, UM, SUCH TERRAIN.
AND SO IT WOULD'VE, IT WOULD'VE CREATED MORE PROBLEMS IF I HAD LEFT IT UNFINISHED.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN A VERY UNSAFE, UM, PLACE FOR HIM, UH, TO, UH, TO BE WALKING.
UM, AND SO I NEEDED TO, I'M, YOU KNOW, SORRY, I NEEDED TO PRIORITIZE THAT, UM, OVER, UM, YEAH, UH, I, AND, AND THIS, THIS COMMENT OF, OF DISREGARD FOR THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD AND HISTORIC NATURE THAT IS NOT, UH, I, I HAVE NO DISREGARD FOR HISTORY, IN FACT, A STUDENT OF, OF HISTORY AND, AND OF MUSIC HISTORY AND HAVE DEDICATED OVER 30 SOME ODD YEARS OF MY LIFE TO HISTORY.
SO I HAVE NO DISREGARD FOR HISTORY WHATSOEVER.
UM, SO I JUST WANT, I'M VERY CLEAR AND I DON'T REALLY CARE FOR THAT COMMENT.
UM, SO YES, THAT IS, UH, TO CONTINUE WITH THE WORK.
UM, I THINK, DID WE NOT HEAR THIS AT A HEARING OR WAS IT A D R C? 'CAUSE THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS PROPERTY PRIOR? CAN STAFF JUST REMIND ME? THIS WAS ORIGINALLY LISTED ON THE JUNE 2ND H D R C AGENDA, UH, HOWEVER, UH, IT WAS RESET TO TODAY, UM, ALONG WITH ONE OTHER CASE, I BELIEVE.
SO BEFORE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE IT ON AGENDA, BUT WE HAD A D R C.
THERE HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSION THAT I'M AWARE OF, BUT IT, IT WAS ONE OF THE LAST CASES AT THE END OF THE MOST RECENT AGENDA THAT WAS AUTOMATICALLY RESET TO THIS BECAUSE WE RAN OUTTA TIME.
I FEEL LIKE WE'VE HEARD, WE'VE SEEN THIS PROJECT.
UM, AND, AND THE APPLICANT WAS MENTIONING THAT HIS FATHER WAS COMING IN TOWN AND THAT HE WAS IN A RUSH TO GET TO, UM, AN AGREEMENT.
AND I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD MADE A MOTION OF SOME KIND.
IS THAT NOT, AM I IMAGINING THIS COMMISSIONER GR FISH? I, IF THAT OCCURRED? I WASN'T A PART OF IT.
WELL, I JUST, I DON'T KNOW WHY I FELT LIKE, UM, I FELT LIKE THERE HAD BEEN A CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT AND I, I MEAN, AND THEN IT MUST HAVE BEEN IN A D R C, I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE US, UM, AND I, YOU KNOW, FELT COMPELLED WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN THERE IS A COMPLIANCE, I MEAN, WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
AND I THINK THAT STAFF WAS VERY CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, NO WORK COULD BE CONTINUED.
AND, AND, AND I KIND OF AGREE WITH THE COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT'S NOT IN A NEGATIVE WAY.
I ALSO THINK IT'S JUST IN GENERAL, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A COMPLIANCE AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT, I FEEL LIKE FOR THE APPLICANT THAT BY CONTINUING THE WORK AND NOT COMPLYING WITH THE STOP WORK ORDER, NOW IT'S BECOME MORE OF A EXPENSIVE PROJECT.
SORRY, THE, THEY KEPT CUTTING OUT THERE.
MR. COMMISSIONER, THIS IS JAY GIBBS.
SO QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO, UM, I'M, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH, UM, A FELLOW COMMISSIONER GROUP, UM, WHERE THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY SAID YOU, YOU
[00:35:01]
HAVE ANY DISREGARD, UM, FOR HISTORY I THINK IS MORE IN LINES WITH WHEN, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU WERE MADE AWARE OF THE HOME AND, AND THE REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS OF NATURE THAT BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, YOU KNOW, THE WORK HAD ALREADY STARTED AND YOU LET THE WORK CONTINUE KNOWING THAT THAT SITUATION WAS GOING ON.AND, UM, I, I TOO HAVE SET PEOPLE, YOUR FAMILY MEMBER, YOUR FATHER WHO WAS COMING IN AND THINGS OF NATURE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I I BELIEVE THAT THIS WORK MOVED FORWARD WHEN, WHEN IN ESSENCE THEY REALLY SHOULD HAVE STOPPED.
'CAUSE LIKE I SAID, NOW WE ARE CREATED A, A, A MORE, A SERIOUS, MORE SERIOUS SITUATION WHERE PROBABLY IT COULD HAVE BEEN MITIGATED SOMEWHAT, UM, HAD WE STOPPED OR HAD YOU STOPPED ALONG THE WAY THERE.
SO, UM, LIKE I SAID, I, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER AND I AM AGREEMENT WITH STAFF HERE ON THIS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
I, I THINK THE, UH, I WOULD MAKE, I'D ALWAYS RECOMMEND TO ANYBODY THAT'S, UH, DOING WORK OF ANY KIND TO MAKE SURE THEY GET THE PERMITS IN FULL BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS, AND THIS CAN BE AVOIDED.
UH, THAT SAID, THE, THE PROCESS THAT OCCURRED IS, UH, SOMEWHAT IRRELEVANT HERE.
UM, THE GUIDELINES, JUST THE GUIDELINES WHICH ARE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CODE JUST DO NOT PERMIT THE WORK THAT WAS DONE TO REMAIN IN THIS FASHION.
SO I MOVE FOR DENIAL OF ITEM ONE, ITEMS ONE AND TWO PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
I WOULD ADVISE THE APPLICANT THAT, UH, HE, HE DEFINITELY HAS THE, UH, RIGHT AND ABILITY TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE H D R C TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
COMMISSIONER GIBBS, I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
[18. 21-4469 Address/Description: 506 E PARK AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-179 Historic District Name: Tobin Hill Applicant: Erin Camp Request: Driveway and front walkway modifications City Council Dist.: 1]
RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE? YES.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 18 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 1 7 9 5 6 EAST PARK.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, MODIFY THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMOVE THE FRONT PARKING PAD AND TWO, REPLACE THE EXISTING BRICK FRONT WALKWAY WITH CONCRETE PAVERS.
ITEM ONE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PARKING PAD REMOVAL BASED ON FINDING B WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS AN UPDATED MEASURED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
ITEM TWO, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONCRETE PAVER INSTALLATION BASED ON FINDINGS SEEN STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT REPLACES THE CONCRETE PAVERS INSTALLED WITHOUT APPROVAL WITH A BRICK OR FULLY CONCRETE WALKWAY TO MATCH THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING FOOTPRINT.
CASE COMMENTS, UM, THE APPLICANT CAME BEFORE THE H D R C ON MAY 5TH AND RECEIVED APPROVAL TO REMOVE THE EXISTING PARKING PAD AND REPLACE THE EXISTING BRICK WALKWAY WITH A FULLY BRICK OR FULLY, OR WITH A BRICK OR FULLY CONCRETE WALKWAY TO MATCH THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.
AND THEN FOLLOWING THE H D R C DECISION STAFF OBSERVED THAT THE APPLICANT HAD REPLACED THE EXISTING BRICK WALKWAY WITH THE PROPOSED RECTANGULAR CONCRETE PAVERS WITHOUT APPROVAL.
SO THIS CASE HAS RETURNED TO H D R C TO REQUEST APPROVAL FOR THE INSTALLED CONCRETE PAVERS.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN RESPONDED, HAS NOT BEEN RESPONSIVE, AND HAS NOT JOINED, UM, THE H D R C HEARING TODAY.
YEAH, COMMISSIONERS, YOU MIGHT RECALL, THIS ONE ACTUALLY WAS DISCUSSED AT A HEARING.
UM, IT WAS POSTPONED THAT THE APPLICANT COULD PROVIDE, UM, DETAILED DRAWINGS OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED.
UM, AND THEN OVER THE WEEKEND WE SAW THAT IT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN CONSTRUCTED.
SO HERE'S THE PHOTOS OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY PROPOSED.
UM, AND SO AT THIS POINT IT IS A VIOLATION CASE, UM, AND WE ARE SEEKING, UM, H D S A RECOMMENDATION ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? UM, WE DO NOT.
I, I RECALL DISCUSSING THIS CASE AND DISCUSSING THE PROPOSAL AND INDICATING THAT WE HAD CONCERN WITH IT, UH, THE LAST TIME WE HEARD IT.
SO I CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, UM, AS RELATED TO THE ITEMS. SO I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD MOVE, UH, FOR, UH, APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS THAT RELATES TO THE REMOVAL OF THE PARKING, UH, PAD ELEMENT THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN BEEN DISCUSSED, BUT NOT NECESSARILY APPROVED.
AND, UH, DENIAL OF ITEM TWO AS INDICATED BY STAFF.
UM, JUST, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BOWMAN.
IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE PICTURE.
[00:40:01]
UH, FELLOW COMMISSIONER'S, UH, OPINION ON SOMETHING.SO A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE COMMISSIONER BOWMAN, CAN WE GET, WE HAVE A MOTION? CAN WE GET A SECOND AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS SURE.
PERMISSION STILL FOR I SECOND? OKAY.
MOTION A SECOND NOW, UH, COMMISSIONER BOWMAN? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
SO, UM, MY, MY QUESTION IS A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT CASES LIKE THIS, AND, AND I, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THIS IS A, UH, YOU KNOW, SITUATION WHERE THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THE WORK AND THEY DIDN'T GET THE APPROVAL.
AND, AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THIS MOTION HERE, BUT AS FAR AS THE WORK THAT WAS DONE, UH, A LOT OF TIMES WE LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE REV REVERSED, SOMETHING THAT'S REVERSIBLE.
UM, AND THIS IS, AND ESPECIALLY WITH LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS LIKE THIS, UH, THE EXISTING PARKING DRIVE IS STILL THERE.
THEY'VE REMOVED THE SIDEWALK, BUT BY ALL MEANS, THIS IS NOT DESTRUCTIVE OF THE FABRICS TOO MUCH OTHER THAN THE, THE EXISTING SIDEWALK.
AND IT COULD BE REPLACED BY ANOTHER OWNER IN THE PAST.
WHAT, WHAT I MEAN IN THE FUTURE, I'M SORRY, UM, TO GET IT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY.
SO WHAT, UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GET Y'ALL'S OPINIONS ON, ON THAT AS FAR AS HOW THIS WAS DESIGNED.
NOT SO MUCH HOW IT WAS HANDLED, BUT HOW MUCH, HOW IT WAS DESIGNED.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
UM, YEAH, NOT SPEAKING TO THE PROCESS, THE, SOME OF THE FRONT YARD ELEMENTS HAD BEEN, UM, ALTERED, UH, PREVIOUSLY, AND IN THE PHOTO ON THE SCREEN THAT YOU CAN SEE, UM, THE, I THINK THE, THE PAVED WALKWAY, WHICH IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE, WHERE YOU SEE THOSE PAVERS IN TERMS OF WIDTH AND GENERAL POSITION MAY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY SHIFTED AND THEY WANTED TO REALIGN IT CENTERED ON THE DOOR.
DON'T THINK THE COMMISSION HAD ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT NECESSARILY.
AND TO THE RIGHT OF THE IMAGE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY A PARKING PAD EXTENSION THAT EXTENDED THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE THAT THE OWNER INTENDED ON REMOVING.
UM, I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSION HAD ANY CONCERN WITH THE REMOVAL OF THAT.
I THINK WHERE WHAT WE HAD CONCERN IN WAS THE MATERIALITY AND THE CHARACTER, UH, OF THE FRONT APPROACH, UH, TO THE HOUSE AND THE PRESERVATION OF LAWN ELEMENTS THAT CREATE A SEPARATION, THE FRONT WALKWAY TO THE HOUSE AND THE DRIVE.
AND, UH, IT, I BELIEVE A NUMBER OF OTHER COMMISSIONERS WERE PART OF THAT DISCUSSION.
SO IF I LEFT ANYTHING OUT, FEEL FREE TO REPORT.
I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THIS PHOTO AND THEN WHAT IS CURRENTLY EXISTING THAT THEY DID CUT BACK THE PARKING PAD A LITTLE BIT.
I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW FAR, UM, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCORE LINES IN THE, IN THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK, IT LOOKS LIKE THE EDGE OF THE PARKING PAD IS NOW TO THE RIGHT OF, UH, AN EXISTING SCORE LINE.
SO THEY MAY HAVE CUT BACK THE PARKING PAD SLIGHTLY AND THEN PUT IN THE OTHER CONCRETE PAVERS UP TO THE FRONT WALK.
BUT I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID THAT THE DESIGN OF THE WALK ITSELF, IT WAS DISCUSSED AT WHAT IT WAS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE, OF THE HOUSE OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST TO ADD ONE THING, I REMEMBER, UH, ONE OF THE ELEMENTS THAT WE DISCUSSED, BUT I, I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSION WOULD'VE, WOULD'VE, UH, REQUIRED ANY REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT WAS DONE, UH, OUTSIDE OF A PERIOD REVIEW.
AND THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY A, A, A MANDATE THAT I THINK STAFF WAS BRINGING UPON THE APPLICANT.
AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY CUT VERY MUCH OF IT BACK, BUT THE, THE DISTINCTION OF THE WALK FROM THE DRIVE WAS IMPORTANT IN SOME PRESERVATION OF THAT LAWN ELEMENT.
AND YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PHOTO THAT, UH, ALL OF THAT PAVED SURFACE JUST EXTENDS NOW UNIFORMLY ACROSS THE FRONT, WHICH IS, WHICH IS I THINK, UH, ONE OF THE, THE BIGGER ISSUES HERE IN TERMS OF PATTERN AND CHARACTER.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
GIBBON GROUP? BOWMAN? NO, THAT SIR.
[19. 21-4385 Address/Description: 301 E ROSEWOOD AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-207 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Oscar Martinez Request: Front yard fencing installation City Council Dist.: 1]
19 STEP, ARE YOU THERE?[00:45:03]
HI THERE.ITEM NUMBER 19 IS YOUR C CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 27 ADDRESS, 3 0 1 EAST ROSEWOOD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL A NEW RAW IRON FRONT YARD FENCE BEFORE HEAT CALLS.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FRONT YARD FENCE INSTALLATION BASED ON FINDING A THROUGH C.
THE IS WITH APPLICANT INSTALLS BOX HEDGES OR A SIMILAR LANDSCAPING BUFFER IS FOUND ON THE BLOCK.
IF THE H D R C IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE THE FRONT YARD FENCE, INSTALLATION STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION HEIGHT OF THE APPROVED GATE AND FENCING MAY NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FOUR FEET AS APPROVED BY THE H D R C AT ANY PORTION OF THE FENCE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE FENCING MUST BE PERMITTED AND MEET THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OUTLINED IN U D C SECTION 35 DASH FIVE 14.
AND I HAVE THE OWNER OSCAR ON THE LINE.
OSCAR, DID YOU WANNA INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR PROPOSAL? YES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT, UH, BRINGING THAT, UH, UH, MY PROPOSAL, UM, TO THIS COMMITTEE.
UH, FIRST OFF, I'D LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR BEING SO FLEXIBLE WITH ME OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS AS I, UH, MY WIFE HAD MY FIRST CHILD AND, UH, I HAD TO MOVE, UH, PRESENTING TO THIS COMMITTEE A COUPLE OF TIMES.
SO HAVING SAID THAT, I WOULD LIKE, UH, TO FIRST OFF, START OFF BY, UH, DESCRIBING THE PROPERTY, ITS LOCATION, AND THEN WHAT MY INTENT, UH, GOALS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE FOR REQUESTING TO BUILD A FENCE ON THE FRONT OF MY YARD.
UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, A LITTLE BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH, UM, AS WELL AS SOME COMPARABLES.
I WON'T TAKE TOO MUCH TIME, SO I'LL BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE.
NOW, THE FIRST THING IS THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS PROPERTY WAS BUILT IN 1930, UH, BY MR. AND MRS. ALLISON WHO, UM, HAVE PASSED AND I, I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY FROM THE, UM, THEIR SONS OR THEIR SONS.
UM, SO AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, UH, I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO TAKE THIS HOUSE AND TAKE IT FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE 21ST 20TH CENTURY TO THE 21ST CENTURY.
UH, WHILE MAINTAINING THE THINGS THAT I LOVE ABOUT, ABOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, I WAS HERE.
UH, I, I'M NOT ORIGINALLY FROM SAN ANTONIO, BUT NOW I AM.
UM, I COME FROM A DIFFERENT PLACE AND I WORKED IN SAN ANTONIO BACK IN 1996.
I WORKED AT TRINITY UNIVERSITY AND I WAS PASSED BY THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LOVED THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND I, UH, KNEW THEN THAT I WOULD BE PURCHASING AT SOME POINT, UH, A HOUSE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
NOW, GOING BACK TO THAT, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I LOVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY, WHICH IT LIES IN.
UM, THE PROXIMITY TO TRINITY IS GREAT BECAUSE MAYBE ONE DAY I'LL BE LUCKY ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY RETIRE AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, WALK OVER TO TRINITY AND TEACH THERE.
NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, UH, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE ALSO PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF IT.
LET'S NOT SAY IT'S PROBLEMS. OKAY, I'LL JUMP RIGHT.
DIGRESS BACK TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT, UH, TO BE, I DON'T KNOW, UM, AT SOME POINT IT BECAME A DUPLEX, BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE, IT WAS BUILT TO BE A DUPLEX.
I HAVE, UM, BRINGING IT BACK, IT'S JUST ME, MY WIFE, AND NOW MY, UH, NEW SON.
UM, THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, SMALL UPDATES TO IT.
WE'VE, UH, HAD TO REDO THE WINDOWS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
AND WHEN I MEAN, REDO THE WINDOWS, I MEAN ACTUALLY REPAIR, I LITERALLY, UH, HAD TO BUY THE MATERIAL AND THE EQUIPMENT TO ACTUALLY HAVE EVERYTHING MEASURED EXACTLY THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE SO THAT IT WOULDN'T INTERFERE WITH, UM, THE WAY THAT THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.
BUT I DO HAVE, UM, UM, THE FRONT YARD HAS A SMALL, UM, RETAINING WALL.
SO THE WHOLE HOUSE IS SET ON A ROCK.
AND THEN THE, THE SIZE OF THE ROCK WERE ACTUALLY LEVELED OFF WITH DIRT.
SO THAT CREATED, UM, A HIGHER THAN BASE, UM, ELEVATION, ABOUT ONE FOOT TO TWO FEET ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.
AND THAT REQUIRED, WHAT THEY DID IS THEY PUT A RETAINING WALL BUILT WITH HILL ROCK, AND AT THE TOP THEY PUT A SMOOTH CEMENT SURFACE THAT IS ABOUT, UH, ONE FOOT, UM, WIDE.
UM, BUT THEN HERE COMES, UM, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS ONE, INCREASE THE SECURITY AND COMFORT, UH, THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THE PLACE, UM, AND AT THE SAME TIME BE ABLE TO PRESERVE ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT IT ALREADY HAS.
THIS IS WHY I CHOSE A ROD IRON FENCE, AND I INITIALLY CHOSE THE, THE LARGER WRT IRON FENCE JUST BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS WRITTEN ON THE CODE WHEN I WENT THROUGH IT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS.
[00:50:01]
I KNOW THAT WITHIN THE, WITH THE DOCUMENTATION, THERE WAS A SUGGESTION FOR HEDGES ON THE FRONT.BUT I THINK THAT GIVEN THE BEAUTY OF, I HAVE A HUGE OAK, I MEAN, IT MUST BE ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, NOT NOT A HUNDRED, IT'S MAYBE ABOUT 60 FOOT TALL, UH, WITH A CIRCUMFERENCE OF ABOUT THREE FEET AT THE TRUNK.
EVERYBODY THAT PASSES BY HERE, UH, REALLY ENJOYS THE SHADE AND ENJOYS MY YARD.
UNFORTUNATELY, I'M HAVING ISSUES ENJOYING IT MYSELF.
SO, UM, ONCE AGAIN, I WANT TO INCREASE THE SECURITY OF THE PROPERTY, THE COMFORT FOR ME AND MY FAMILY, UM, AND FOR EVERYONE THAT LIVES AROUND ME.
AND THEN THE NEW LOOK AND BEAUTIFICATION OF THE PLACE AS WELL.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE I SPECIFICALLY LIVE ON, ON ROSEWOOD, IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO TRINITY.
AND AS A RESULT, THERE IS ABOUT 70% OF THE PROPERTIES HERE ARE APARTMENT COMPLEXES OR MULTI-UNITS, UH, THAT ARE RENTED TO STUDENTS.
I THINK THERE'S ABOUT FOUR PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY ARE THE OWNERS OF THE HOUSES AND RESIDE IN THE HOUSES.
UM, NOW HAVING SET THOSE GOALS IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE, UM, I HAVE, UH, A CAMERA THAT I SET UP, UH, TO COLLECT ANALYTICS ABOUT THE PROPERTY, THE PEOPLE THAT PASSED BY, WHAT HAPPENS, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF ISSUES AT THIS PROPERTY.
ONE IS THAT, AS YOU KNOW, STUDENTS LIKE TO DRINK ON SATURDAY OR FRIDAY OR SOMETIMES EVEN WEDNESDAY.
UM, AND THEY LOVE PARKING IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE AND THEY LOVE WALKING ON TOP OF THE LITTLE LEDGE OR PLAYING, UH, ULTIMATE FRISBEE.
AND I HAVE COME OUT AT TWO, THREE IN THE MORNING, NOT ONCE, MULTIPLE TIMES TO TELL THEM TO PLEASE KEEP IT DOWN ONE AND TWO, GET OFF MY YARD BECAUSE THEY'RE WAKING ME UP, ME AND MY WIFE.
UM, SORRY, UH, JOSH TRUCK STOPPING BY.
UM, THE OTHER THING THAT I HAVE IS THAT ON THAT CAMERA THAT I INSTALLED, ON THE ANALYTICS SIDE, WE HAVE A TOTAL OF TWO, UH, 257 AVERAGE VEHICLES PASSED BY OUR HIGH HOUSE DAILY.
WE HAVE AN AVERAGE OF 194 PEDESTRIANS STOPPING BY, UM, PASSING BY THE SIDEWALK, NOT STOPPING BY, PASSING BY THE SOUTH SIDEWALK, EITHER WALKING, THEIR DOGS ARE JUST GOING FOR A WALK.
OUT OF THOSE 194, WE HAVE 5% OF THOSE PEOPLE.
AND THIS IS AVERAGED OUT OVER THE LAST YEAR.
5% OF THOSE PEOPLE STOP, SIT ON THE RETAINING WALL, HAVE A CIGARETTE, WHICH IS WHAT PROBLEM I'M CURRENTLY HAVING IS, UH, SOMEBODY COMES FROM THE APARTMENT COMPLEX AND SITS ON OUR LEDGE TO SMOKE A CIGARETTE INSTEAD OF, UH, SMOKING IN THEIR APARTMENT COMPLEX, UM, SIT.
AND EVERY DAY I PICK UP LITTLE GIFTS THAT THEY LEAVE ME, WHICH IS EITHER WRAPPERS OF CIGARETTES, LITTLE TRASH CAN OF A SNACK BAR OR SOMETHING, AND I DO IT EVERY DAY.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT OUT OF THOSE 194 PEOPLE THAT PASS BY THAT DO HAVE PETS, I HAVE TWO, UM, PETS THAT I RESCUED, AND THEY'RE USUALLY IN THE BACKYARD BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN'T BE ON THE FRONT YARD.
UM, BUT THE PETS LIKE TO JUMP, COME OVER TO WHERE THE TREE IS AND ALSO LEAVE ME LITTLE GIFTS.
AND THIS IS, UM, I USED TO DO IT EVERY DAY, BUT I'VE BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE, MORE VOCAL OF TELLING THE PEOPLE THAT PASS BY TO PLEASE PICK UP, UM, THE GIFTS OF THEIR DOG SLEEPING.
UM, BUT WHEN I DON'T CATCH THEM OR I DON'T SEE THEM AGAIN BECAUSE I DO HAVE THE CAMERA FOR IT, UM, I HAVE TO PICK IT UP MYSELF.
SO THIS IS KIND OF BECOMING, YOU KNOW, UH, A CONTINUOUS ISSUE.
THE POSTMAN HIMSELF WALKED STRAIGHT THROUGH THE YARD AND HAS MANAGED TO MAKE A TRAIL BY THE SIDE OF OUR TREE.
AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT I HAVE TALKED TO THE, UH, THE, UH, POSTMASTER, I HAVE TALKED TO HIM AND THE ALTERNATES THAT COME, UM, SO TO PLEASE NOT WALK OVER THE JASMINE THAT IS UNDER THE TREE, UH, THEY CONTINUE TO DO IT.
SO I, UM, I MEAN I'M EITHER, I JUST ALLOW THEM OR I TAKE THE APPROACH THAT I'M TAKING AT THIS POINT.
SO WHAT I WANT TO DO IS I WANT TO DECREASE THE LIABILITY THAT I HAVE BY PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM WALKING ON THE, UM, ON THE RETAINING WALL BECAUSE IT IS SMOOTH.
UM, I WANT TO PREVENT ANIMALS FROM COMING OVER TO THE YARD AND POOPING ON OUR YARD.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO JUST GIVE IT A LITTLE BIT OF, OF, OF A BOUNDARY SO THAT ME AND MY FAMILY CAN ACTUALLY ENJOY OUR PROPERTY WITHOUT, AND EVERYONE ELSE AS WELL, WITHOUT HAVING TO, UH, DEAL WITH ME BEING IRATE BECAUSE OF IT, WHICH I'M USUALLY PRETTY EASYGOING, BUT SOMETIMES IT GETS A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH WHEN IT'S EVERY WEEKEND.
UM, AND THEN THAT'S THE EVIDENCE, THAT'S BASICALLY
[00:55:01]
THE, THE WHAT I, WHY I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY BUILD A FENCE ON THE FRONT YARD.THE OTHER ONE IS I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY TO COMPARE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, TWO HOUSES TO THE EAST.
THERE IS A, A FENCE THAT IS AT 1.9 FEET TALL, AND ALL THROUGHOUT, UH, MORE THAN SIX FEET TALL AT THE LOWEST POINT, IT'S SIX FEET TALL.
IT DOES HAVE, IT'S A RETAINING, IT'S A, UM, IT'S A LIMESTONE ROCK.
AND THEN AT, AND THIS IS A, I'M SORRY, UH, I WAS GETTING A CALL AT THE MOMENT, AND THAT IS A, UM, SO THAT, THAT HAS A RETAINING WALL AND AT THE TOP IT HAS A, UH, FOOT AND A HALF WROUGHT IRON, UH, A PIECE.
SO IT'S RIGHT IN FRONT, IT'S PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND FOR ME, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST AT LEAST CREATE THAT BASE BOUNDARY, UM, DO IT AS TASTEFULLY AS POSSIBLE.
AND I DID CONSIDER BEFORE PUTTING, YOU KNOW, HEDGES OR SOME SORT OF, UH, YOU KNOW, PLANT AT THE, AT THE BOUNDARIES.
BUT ALL THAT'S GONNA DO IS THAT NOW I'M GONNA BE, HAVE TO BE DIGGING UNDER THOSE TREES TO PICK UP WHAT PEOPLE LEAVE BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS THE RETAINING WALL AND THE FACT THAT PEOPLE DO NOT RESPECT THE BOUNDARIES BECAUSE I'M SURROUNDED BY STUDENTS AND EVERY SIX MONTHS IT CHANGES.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT GETS BETTER TOWARDS THE END OF THE SEMESTER AND THEN IT STARTS ALL OVER AGAIN THE FOLLOWING SEMESTER.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONE I JUST WANTED TO CONCLUDE.
SO THAT'S THREE 14 EAST ROSEWOOD IS WHERE I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE THERE, WHICH IS THE, THE FENCE THAT'S NINE FOOT AT ONE PLACE AND SIX FEET, UH, THROUGHOUT.
HAVING SAID THAT, I'D LIKE TO CONCLUDE, UM, WITH, YOU KNOW, I, I WILL ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION, UH, FOR A FENCE THAT MEETS WHAT MY GOALS WOULD BE, WHICH ONE IS, UH, DECREASE MY LIABILITY, KEEP THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC BY NOT BEING AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE, WHICH AT THIS POINT IT SEEMS TO BE AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE BECAUSE I HAVE A BEAUTIFUL SHADE.
I HAVE A BENCH, WHICH IS MY RETAINING WALL IN MY PROPERTY.
AND, UM, I REALLY DON'T HAVE USE FOR IT MYSELF BECAUSE I REALLY CAN'T, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T TAKE MY DOGS OUTSIDE.
I CAN'T BE ON THE FRONT YARD WITH MY KID BECAUSE ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST LITERALLY USING MY YARD.
SO, UH, HAVING SAID THAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO, UH, THE ITEMS THAT I HAVE DISCUSSED.
I HOPE THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER, UM, WHAT I HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU AND, UH, GIVE ME A FAVORABLE, UH, RESOLUTION TO IT.
UH, CORY, DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS? WE DO.
UM, THIS COMES FROM NESSEN, UM, CHAIR OF THE MANIFESTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
UM, THE COMMITTEE CONCURS WITH THE O H B STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE USE OF HEDGES AT THE TOP OF THE SHORT MASONRY WALL ARE APPROPRIATE IN THE ADDITION OF FENCING AT THIS LOCATION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION.
UH, QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP.
UH, I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND, UM, THE, OUR APPLICANT MENTIONED THE NEIGHBOR THAT HAD A HIGH FENCING IN THE FRONT YARD.
I MEAN, I, I DO AGREE JUST BY LOOKING AROUND THE BLOCK AND, AND I DO AGREE THAT THE, THE BRUSH OR THAT SHOULD BE, THAT IS THE RIGHT SOLUTION TO THIS, ESPECIALLY IN THE FRONT.
UM, I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT'S ALSO SUBMITTING SOME PORTIONS OF SIX FEET PRIVACY IN THE BACK.
DID STAFF, STAFF NOT, LIKE, ARE THEY ALSO DISAGREEING WITH THAT? WAS THAT ONE ON PART OF THIS APPLICATION OR THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED? YEAH, SIX FEET TALL.
PRIVACY SENSING IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, SO THAT'S NOT AN AGENDA.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WHERE THAT CYCLONE FENCE IS.
THERE IS ALSO SOME, UM, A RETENTION WALL.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIX FEET ABOVE THE RETENTION WALL, OR WE'RE DOING, DOING SIX FEET IN FRONT OF THE RETENTION WALL? NO, SO IT'S A PROPERTY SL, UH, I'M SORRY.
THIS IS OSCAR MARTINEZ PROPERTY OWNER.
SO THE, THE RETAINING WALL ACTUALLY SLAMMED.
SO, UH, GEOGRAPHICALLY AT ONE POINT IT'S SIX FEET FROM THE BASE.
AND, AND BY THE WAY, I PUT THE MAXIMUM, IT'S NOT SIX FEET, IT'S ACTUALLY FIVE FEET.
AND THEN I ALLOWED FOR ABOUT ONE FOOT, UH, FOR THE RETAINING WALL.
UM, AND THERE'S ALREADY A FENCE THERE BY THE WAY THAT CLARIFIES.
IT'S A CHAIN LENGTH FENCE THAT'S REALLY, YEAH, EXACTLY THAT.
WE'RE NOT EXCEEDING SIX FEET FROM THE GROUND, NOT FROM THE RETENTION WALL.
[01:00:01]
OKAY.YEAH, I MEAN, I KIND OF CONCUR WITH STAFF ON THE FOUR FEET.
MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER? YES, SIR.
QUICK QUESTION, UH, FOR STAFF ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL ON THE, UH, SIDE YARD FENCE ALONG GILLESPIE, THE PRIVACY FENCE, IS THAT ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL IN ADDITION TO THE REAR FENCE? YES.
YES, REALLY THE ISSUE REALLY THE ISSUE HERE IS JUST THE FRONT YARD FENCE.
UM, THE GUIDELINES ARE PRETTY SPECIFIC, UH, IN TERMS OF THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW FRONT YARD, UH, FENCES THAT THEY, THAT THEY NOT BE INTRODUCED WHERE THEY WEREN'T, UH, DIDN'T EXIST HISTORICALLY OR AREN'T HISTORICALLY, UH, PREVALENT.
AND I, I'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT THE PROPERTY THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, UH, ACROSS THE STREET AND I THINK IT'S PROBABLY EAST, A COUPLE OF HOUSES, AND IT'S ONE OF THE VERY FEW, UM, ELEMENTS AND IT APPEARS THAT IT'S BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME.
SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF A NEW FRONT YARD FENCING, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE CONTEXT HERE.
UM, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN TERMS OF, UH, REDUCING SITTING, THERE MIGHT BE, UH, SOME, UM, LESS CHARACTER CHANGING OPTIONS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR A MODIFICATION OR REVERSIBLE MODIFICATION OF THE TOP OF THE WALL THAT WOULD PREVENT PEOPLE FROM OCCUPYING IT.
UH, BUT I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
IT, IT SEEMS LIKE, UH, BARRING THE, THE FRONT YARD FENCE ISSUE, STAFF IS WILLING TO ISSUE, UM, APPROVAL ON THE OTHER ELEMENTS.
SO, UH, I, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD, I WOULD MOVE TO DENY PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, SORRY COMMISSIONER, CAN WE ALSO MAYBE JUST ASK THE APPLICANT TO WITHDRAW AND COME BACK WITH ANOTHER SOLUTION? COULD THAT BE AN OPTION? I MEAN, IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE OUTCOME VERY MUCH.
I MEAN, IF HE CAME BACK WITH SOMETHING ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, I MEAN, HE COULD DO THAT EVEN WITH A DENIAL.
COMMISSIONER LA I SECOND THE MOTION.
WE HAVE A MO A SE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
I WOULD JUST ASK IF THERE'S AN ALTERNATE, IF THERE'S AN ALTERNATE, UH, PROPOSAL TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM SITTING ON THE WALL.
UH, WE WOULD BE, UH, HAPPY TO REVIEW IT.
IF STAFF CAN'T, UH, DEAL WITH THAT JUST THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, CERTAINLY DON'T WANNA DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD ADD UNNECESSARY TIME TO THE PROCESS.
UH, AND JUST TO COMMENT, UM, ACROSS THE STREET AND DOWN A HOUSE OR TWO, UM, ON PHOTO NUMBER FIVE, THERE APPEARS TO BE A LOW STONE WALL WITH A, UH, EDGE, WHICH ACTUALLY OVERHANGS THE TOP OF THE STONE WALL.
SO I BELIEVE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT STAFF WAS MAKING AS A, A SUGGESTION THAT, UM, IF A HEDGE WAS BUILT THERE, THE, THE, IT WOULD OVERHANG THE STONE WALL AND THEREFORE WOULD KEEP PEOPLE OFF OF THE TOP OF THE WALL.
UM, MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE FISH? AYE.
OKAY, ITEM 20, I THINK, RACHEL, WERE YOU, WERE YOU ABLE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT BACK? OKAY.
UM, I'M HEARING THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT FOR ITEM 20 HAS WITHDRAWN.
UM, WE ARE GONNA SEEK THAT IN WRITING SO THAT WE CAN, UM, DO THAT AND NOT SEEK, UH, PERMISSION ACTION ON THAT.
SO RACHEL, IF YOU COULD WORK ON GETTING THAT IN WRITING, WE'LL BE ABLE TO MOVE ON FROM THAT ITEM.
UM, THAT BRINGS US TO 20, NO, I'M SORRY, ITEM
[21. 21-4389 Address/Description: 420 BROADWAY HDRC Case No.: 2021-224 Landmark Name: Individual Landmark RIO District: RIO-2 Applicant: Zabrina Silva / Comet Signs, LLC Request: Signage City Council Dist.: 1]
21 OR 20 BROADWAY.AND, UM, STEPH, ARE YOU ABLE TO QUICKLY REACH THAT APPLICANT ON SHORT NOTICE? OKAY, BEAR WITH WITH US ONE SECOND.
[01:05:10]
HEY, RACHEL, WE CANNOT HEAR YOU IF YOU'RE SPEAKING.YEAH, THIS IS STEPHANIE WITH ITEM 21.
H T R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 2 24 ADDRESS, FOUR 20 BROADWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, INSTALL ONE SET OF REVERSE LIT CHANNEL LETTERS READING SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS NEWS ON THE NORTHEAST FACADE TO MEASURE APPROXIMATELY 40 SQUARE FEET.
AND TWO, INSTALL ONE SET OF REVERSE CHANNEL LETTERS TO INCLUDE A LOGO THAT READS SA WITH CHANNEL LETTERS READING EXPRESS NEWS ON THE SOUTHWEST FACADE TO MEASURE APPROXIMATELY 80 SQUARE FEET.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SIGN INSTALLATION BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH D WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION FOR THE SIGN FACING MCCULLOUGH, ITEM ONE, SUCH AS A PROJECTING ARM OR BLADE SIGN AT THE GROUND LEVEL.
AS NOTED IN FINDING B, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT UPDATED DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW.
AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND I HAVE ADAM, AN ADDITIONAL REP REPRESENTATIVE ON THE LINE FOR THE OWNER.
ADAM, CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AND WHAT YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR? YEAH.
I'M A PRINCIPAL HERE WITH FORD POWELL AND CARSON ARCHITECTS.
UH, WE ARE THE, UM, UH, ARCHITECT OF RECORD FOR THE LIGHT BUILDING, UH, ON BEHALF OF OWNER GRAY STREET PARTNERS.
WE'RE ALSO THE TENANT HERE IN THE BUILDING.
AND, UM, WE, UM, I WANNA PREFACE THIS WITH, UH, THE FACT THAT WE WERE NOT THE ACTUAL APPLICANT FOR THIS SUBMITTAL.
I KNOW THIS WAS SUBMITTED BY COMMENT SIGNS.
UM, WE HAVE SINCE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION THAT THE OWNER REQUESTED THEY SUBMIT.
UH, WE SAW THE STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND, UM, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THE STIPULATIONS THAT, UH, THE MCCULLOUGH STREET SIGNAGE, UH, NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED.
AND AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE OWNER AND, UM, PROSPECTIVE TENANT HERST CORPORATION, UM, I THINK ARE PREPARED TO COME BACK WITH AN ALTERNATE LOCATION, UH, NEXT MONTH, UH, SHOWING A, A MORE HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE, UM, SOLUTION THAT, THAT, THAT COMPLIES BETTER WITH THE UDC GUIDELINES THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US AND THE FINDINGS.
UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? WE DID NOT, UH, QUESTION MR. REED? THIS IS CHAIRMAN FESTER.
DO YOU WANT US TO HOLD OFF ON ACTION ON THE OTHER SIGN AS WELL SO THAT Y'ALL CAN LOOK AT THE SIGNAGE HOLISTICALLY FOR THE BUILDING? I WOULD PREFER IT, AND I CONVEYED THAT TO THE OWNER YESTERDAY AS WELL AS THE BROKER THAT WE WOULD PREFER BEING ABLE TO LOOK, UM, UH, AS ARCHITECTS OF THE BUILDING AT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS MORE HOLISTICALLY FOR A SITE MASTER PLAN, SIGNAGE MASTER PLAN.
UM, THEY AGREED, AND I THINK IF WE CAN LOOK AT THIS AS SOMETHING WE REVISIT, UM, UH, NEXT MONTH WITH AN UPDATED SET OF EXHIBITS, WE WOULD, UH, BE ABLE TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING WE FEEL IS BETTER REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT YOU WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH AS WELL AS US.
SO BASICALLY Y'ALL ARE, UH, WITHDRAWING THE APPLICATION AND YOU'LL COME BACK WITH A NEW PROPOSAL FOR BUILDING OVERALL BUILDING SIGNAGE.
[22. 21-4457 Address/Description: 134 W MISTLETOE HDRC Case No.: 2021-242 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Lyndsay Thorn/Thorn Architects Request: Demolition of a rear accessory structure City Council Dist.: 1]
MOVING ALONG IS ITEM 22.UM, RACHEL, I DON'T SUPPOSE YOU'RE READY.
RACHEL WAS JUST DROPPED FROM THE WEBEX MEETING AND SO SHE'S REJOINING, SO SHE ACTUALLY HAS TWO CALLS TO MAKE.
SHE'S GOING TO CALL BACK INTO THE MEETING AND THEN CALL HER APPLICANT.
[01:10:05]
UM, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 22 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 2 42 1 34 WEST MISSILE TOE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE DEMOLISH, A CONTRIBUTING REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AND TWO, CONSTRUCT A REAR CARPORT.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REQUEST.
ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE DEMOLITION OF THE HISTORIC REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BASED ON FINDINGS ONE A THROUGH ONE C.
IF THE H D R C FINDS THERE IS UNREASONABLE ECONOMIC HARDSHIP OR FAILING THAT FINDS A LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE HAS OCCURRED AND APPROVES THE REQUEST OF DEMOLITION, THEN STAFF MAKES THE FOLLOWING.
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE REQUESTED NEW CONSTRUCTION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF REQUEST.
ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A REAR CARPORT STRUCTURE BASED ON FINDINGS TWO A THROUGH TWO F WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT MATERIALS FROM THE HISTORIC ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, INCLUDING SALVAGEABLE WOOD SIDING AND WOOD DOORS BE SALVAGED AND STORED FOR USE ON THE SITE AND FUTURE CONSTRUCTION.
TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT EXPLORES A SETBACK IN KEEPING WITH THE EXISTING REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT REMAINS IN LINE WITH THE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE AT 1712 HOWARD STREET.
AN UPDATED SITE PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCES THE OVERALL FOOTPRINT TO MORE CLOSELY REFLECT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
AN UPDATED SITE PLAN AND UPDATED ELEVATION DRAWINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AND FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND THE APPLICANT, LINDSEY THORN IS ON THE LINE.
LINDSEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE REQUEST AT THIS TIME? YES, SIR.
UM, I'M HERE JUST TO DISCUSS THE, UH, ISSUE WE HAVE HERE AT THE MISSILE TO PROPERTY, UH, THE EXISTING GARAGE.
I KNOW THAT STAFF WENT TO VISIT THE SITE BOARD MEMBERS OF MY OFFICE ON FRIDAY MORNING.
WE HAVE A STRUCTURE THERE THAT WAS, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THE EXACT YEAR OF IT, BUT THERE, THERE APPEARS TO BE A STRUCTURE THERE THAT WAS BUILT AROUND THE, MAYBE THE FORTIES, EARLY FIFTIES.
UM, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS IN A PRETTY BAD STATE OF DISREPAIR.
IT'S, UM, ALMOST POSSIBLE TO PARK, UH, MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE IN THE STRUCTURE.
AND THE, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, THE FRONT FACADE OF THE STRUCTURE IS ACTUALLY IN LINE WITH THE, UH, PROPERTY DIRECTLY BEHIND US ON MISS TOE, BUT HAS A HARD STANDING PARKING SPACE THEORETICALLY FOR TWO OUT FRONT.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT, TWO PARK, TWO PARKING, UH, TWO PARKING VEHICLES OUT THERE.
AND THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE LENGTH OF VEHICLES TODAY, EVEN THE SMALL VEHICLE, UH, TO LIKE A LENGTH OF A PRIUS OR SMALLER COMPACT VEHICLE, THE BACK OF IT STILL PROTRUDES INTO THE SIDEWALK.
IF YOU PARK A TRUCK OR ANYTHING OF THAT LENGTH, IT ACTUALLY HANGS OUT OVER THE SIDEWALK AND ALMOST THE BACK CURB.
SO WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT IF WE COULD ACTUALLY DEMOLISH THAT STRUCTURE AND ACTUALLY CREATE A CARPORT THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY PARK TWO VEHICLES TO THE HOUSE THERE, UH, PROPERLY UNDER THE, UNDER THE STRUCTURE FULLY THE, THE ALL FOUR VEHICLES WOULD BE COVERED.
UM, WE'VE GOT A GATE THERE THAT THEN WILL CLOSE OFF AND SECURE THE BACKYARD JUST SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET VEHICLES OFF THE SIDEWALK OUTTA THE STREET.
AND ACTUALLY ON THE PROPERTY, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY THEN AS WELL THAT IF THEY HAVE A PARTY OR SOMETHING, THEY CAN ACTUALLY, UH, USE THAT COVERED STRUCTURE THERE TO, UM, USE THE BACKYARD FOR ENTERTAINING PURPOSES.
AND WE ADVOCATED LOOK AND TRY TO PUT A STRUCTURE BEHIND.
SO AGAIN, IT, IT'S TUCKED AWAY TO THE BACK OF THE STRUCTURE BEHIND THE, UH, THE CARPORT ITSELF.
SO WE, WE DON'T HAVE TO GET SOME OTHER RUBBER MADE, UM, MOST ATTRACTIVE STORAGE VEHICLE ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE SIDE.
THE NEIGHBOR HAVE A, A NEW TWO STORY STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT, UH, IMMEDIATELY TO OUR, IMMEDIATELY TO OUR EAST, UH, ACROSS THE STREET.
THERE'S A NEW, NEW CARPORT THAT WAS BUILT ACROSS THE STREET AS WELL.
SO, UM, I DON'T THINK WE'RE ASKING IS OTHER KEEPING.
WE WILL OF COURSE USE ALL THE SAME ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS THAT WE HAVE ON THE HOUSE AND REPEAT THEM ON THE CARPORT STRUCTURE ITSELF.
WE'RE, TRY TO MAKE IT AS MUCH A NON-STRUCTURE AS ANYTHING ENOUGH THAT WE'LL KEEP, UH, VEHICLES SORT OF, UM, OUT OF THE, THE, THE WEATHER AND THE, THE TREES FALL THAT WE HAVE FOR THE PROPERTY.
CORY, DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS? UM, YES, WE HAVE QUITE A FEW
[01:15:01]
ACTUALLY.UM, SO I'LL START WITH THE WRITTEN COMMENTS AND THEN WE HAVE A, AT LEAST ONE VOICEMAIL.
UM, SO THIS COMES FROM JANE LEWIS, UH, TO 26 WEST GRAMERCY.
I'M OPPOSED TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE HISTORIC GARAGE STRUCTURE DUE TO ITS CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE PROPERTY'S HISTORIC DESIGNATION.
THE NEXT COMES FROM JOSEPHINE CURTIS, THREE 15 WEST ATCH AND THE PHOTO PROVIDED TO US ONLINE.
I SEE NO REDEEMING QUALITIES TO THIS GARAGE, NOR HAVE YOU DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WAS DESIGNED BY ATLEY BIERS.
IN FACT, HE IS PROBABLY TURNING OVER IN HIS GRAVE BY, UH, YOUR VERY IMPLICATION THAT AND IS PROBABLY THANKFUL THAT IT IS AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WHERE FEW CAN SEE IT.
UM, I HAVE NOT, YOU HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WAS ORIGINAL TO THE HOME.
NEXT COMES FROM PAULA BONDERANT 2 0 8 WEST CRAIG.
THIS GARAGE IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
IT IS IN REASONABLE HABITABLE CONDITION AND SHOULD NOT BE DEMOLISHED.
THE NEXT COMES FROM BARBARA STEVENS.
TWO 11 WEST SUMMIT DENIED THE REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION.
THIS GARAGE IS ON THE SAND BOARD MAP OF 1938.
NEXT COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS, UH, PRESIDENT OF THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY.
CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO.
CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY DEMOLITION OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1 34 WEST MISSILE TOE DEMONSTRATION OF ECONOMIC HARDSHIP HAS NOT BEEN MET SINCE THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CARPORT THAT IS TWICE THE SIZE OF THE ORIGINAL.
AND COST ESTIMATES FOR THAT CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT INCLUDED.
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE BASED ON THE PHOTOS AND THIS HANDBOARD MAPS INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION.
THESE SHOW A STRUCTURE RETAINING ITS FORM AND LOCATION FOR OVER 50 YEARS IN NEED OF REPAIRS TYPICAL FOR ITS AGE.
UM, THE NEXT IS FROM PAUL PAUL KINISON, UH, FOR 18 WEST FRENCH PLACE.
THE M VHS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS REQUEST FOR THE DEMOLITION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE GARAGE AT 1 34 WEST MISSILE TOW FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
ONE, THIS GARAGE CONTRIBUTES TO THE CHARACTER OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WITHIN THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL DISTRICT.
IN OUR RESEARCH, WE FOUND, UH, FOUND A 1938 SANBORNS MAP, WHICH SHOWS THE GARAGE AND ITS CURRENT FOOTPRINT, WHICH WOULD MAKE THE GARAGE APPROXIMATELY 85 YEARS OLD.
WE THINK THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ACCESSORY GARAGES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND WERE CONSTRUCTED IN THE 1920S AND THIRTIES.
IN ADDITION TO SHOWING THE EVOLUTION FROM BARNS TO AUTO GARAGES, THE CONSTRUCTION METHODS USED ARE HISTORIC IN THEMSELVES.
AT ONE POINT IN HISTORY, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THESE GARAGES IN MONTE VISTA.
IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, WE HAVE LOST MANY FIVE.
THEY WERE MAINLY BUILT IN THE TWENTIES AND THIRTIES AS PROTECTION FOR THE NEW AUTOMOBILES.
THEY WERE BUILT WITHOUT MUCH FRAMING OR INTERIOR STUDS, AND IT'S AMAZING HOW THEY WERE BUILT AND HOW LONG THESE REMAINING ONES HAVE LASTED.
SIX, WE RECOMMENDED THAT THIS HISTORIC GARAGE BE RESTORED AND SAVED, UH, FIVE, BUT I GUESS IT'S ACTUALLY SEVEN.
AND IN OUR OPINION, LOOKING AT THE PHOTOS AND BASED ON OUR PAST EXPERIENCES, THIS HISTORIC GARAGE WHERE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE COULD BE RESTORED WITHOUT TOO MUCH EXPENSE, LESS THAN $25,000 OR $57 PER SQUARE FOOT.
EIGHT, AN ADDED, UH, HISTORICAL BENEFIT TO THE GARAGE RESTORATION IS ITS LOCATION IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT GIVES CONTEXT TO THESE STRUCTURES.
UM, WE WILL NOT LOSE ANOTHER ONE OF THESE HISTORIC ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND GARAGES.
WE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, AND THE LAST WRITTEN COMMENT COMES FROM TONY GARCIA, UM, 2 43 EAST SATCH.
DEAR COMMISSIONERS, OVER THE YEARS, THE MANIFESTA HISTORICAL HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS LOST A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTING GARAGES.
DEMOLITION OF A HISTORIC STRUCTURE, WHICH INCLUDES OUR GARAGES, IS AN IRREPLACEABLE LOSS TO THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF OUR DISTRICT.
WE MAKE REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT A OF SANDBORN MAPS DATED NINETEEN ELEVEN, NINETEEN THIRTY FOUR, NINETEEN THIRTY EIGHT, AND 1970.
EASE MAPS CONFIRMED THE CONTINUOUS EXISTENCE TO DATE OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1 38 WEST, 1 34 WEST MISSILE TOE.
THE 1911 SANDBORN MAPS SHOWS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STABLE FOR HORSE AND BUGGY.
THE 1934 SANDBORN MAP SHOWS THE SAME FOOTPRINT FOR STABLE FOR HORSE AND BUGGY.
UM, THE 1938 SANDBORN MAP SHOWS FIRST FOOTPRINT OF A GARAGE FOR AUTOMOBILE.
THE 1970 SANDBORN MAP SHOWS THE SAME FOOTPRINT OF GARAGE FOR AUTOMOBILE.
IT HAS NOT CHANGED TO THIS DAY UNLESS THERE'S EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
THE SANDBORN MAP SHOW CONVINCINGLY THAT THE EXISTING GARAGE IS 83 YEARS OLD AND POSSIBLY 86 YEARS OLD IF BILLED IN 1935.
FURTHERMORE, BUT WE BELIEVE THE REPAIR ESTIMATE OF 50,000 AS NOTED IN THE LETTER OF MAY 6TH, 2021, TO BE EXTREMELY HIGH.
WE CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REHABILITATION AND WHERE NECESSARY RECONSTRUCTION OF NECESSARY COMPONENTS, WE BELIEVE IT WOULD DRAMATICALLY REDUCE THE REPAIR ESTIMATE BY HALF HISTORIC TEXT INCENTIVES THAT THE APPLICANT COULD SECURE WOULD REDUCE THE COST.
IN SUMMARY, WE BELIEVE THE STRUCTURE MEETS ALL OF THE NATIONAL TRUST CRITERIA FOR HISTORIC INTEGRITY, LOCATION DESIGN, SETTING MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FEELING AND ASSOCIATION.
UH, THIS MONTE VISTA GARAGE IS WORTHY OF BEING SAVED.
THERE IS NO LOSS OF SIGNIFICANCE, ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COMMISSION DENY THE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION.
UM, AND THEN LET'S PLAY THE VOICEMAIL.
MY ADDRESS IS 2 5 0 9 MC AVENUE.
I'M CALLING ABOUT THE GARAGE, THE POTENTIAL DEMOLITION REQUESTS FOR 1 34 WEST MISSILE TOW.
LOOKING AT THE PICTURE, I, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S HISTORIC ABOUT
[01:20:01]
THAT.I'M TOTALLY ALL ABOUT HISTORICAL SOCIETIES AND PRESERVATION, BUT THIS GARAGE IS VERY UNAPPEALING.
I'D LET THE HOMEOWNER, UH, I VOTE IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THE HOMEOWNER TO DEMOLISH IT, RAISE IT, AND BUILD SOMETHING NICER.
THAT'S ALL WE HAVE, COMMISSIONERS.
UH, QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS? MR. CHAIRMAN? THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
UM, I, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, STAFF'S FINDINGS AND THE, THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION PRESENTED BY MR. KENNISON FROM THE N V H A AND TONY GARCIA, UM, ADDS DEPTH TO IT THAT THIS IS CONTRIBUTING, UH, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING DEMOLITION.
UM, I DON'T NECESSARILY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL FOR A REPLACEMENT, BUT THAT'S REALLY NOT THE KEY ISSUE HERE.
KEY ISSUE HERE IS THE DEMOLITION OF THE CONTRIBUTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
UM, IF THE APPLICANT, UH, WOULD PREFER THAT THE, THAT THE COMMISSION VISIT THE SITE AND REVIEW THE STRUCTURE IN PERSON, UH, PERHAPS NEXT WEEK OR THE WEEK AFTER IN A SITE VISIT, I'D BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN SENDING THIS TO A SITE VISIT A D R C.
BUT I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE THAT, UH, WOULD, IS CONVINCING AS PRESENTED HERE TODAY TO, TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION.
MR. CHAIR, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP.
I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER FISH.
UH, MOTION TO MOVE TO D R C VISIT, SITE VISIT.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO SEND THIS TO A D R C SITE VISIT.
ANY DISCUSSION? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
UH, MAY, MAY I MAKE A COMMENT? YES, SIR.
SO, UH, I SENT THE FILE THE HEIGHT.
SO, UM, THIS IS SORT OF A LITTLE BIT OF A, A NORMALLY IF DISCUSSION IS MADE WITHIN, PRESENT THAT BACK TO THE APPLICANT TO DISCUSS WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEY WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT VISIT AND PARTICULARS, BECAUSE I, I THINK IT, IT'S ONE THING ON THE RENOVATION I'VE DONE, I DO MANY OF THESE AND I'VE DONE MANY FOR GONE BACK FOR DECADES.
SO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT REVISITING THE SITE AGAIN? THERE WAS A SITE VISIT, UH, LAST FRIDAY.
SO WE'RE GONNA REVISIT THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY AGAIN.
IS THAT THE, IS THAT THE, THE AIM FOR COMMISSIONS COMING DOWN? YES, SIR.
THIS WOULD BE A VISIT BY COMMISSIONERS, UH, PLUS A STAFF MEMBER TO, UH, REVIEW THE, THE, UH, STRUCTURE.
YEAH, BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE IT, YOU LITERALLY CANNOT, IT, IT CAN'T BE USED FOR INTENDED PURPOSE.
UM, AND IT'S A SAFETY HAZARD FOR PEOPLE WALKING ON THE STREET ON THE SIDEWALK AS WELL, SO, YEAH.
SO, UH, STAFF WILL, WILL COORDINATE WITH US IN TERMS OF THE TIME AND THE DATE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
[23. 21-4445 Address/Description: 415 MISSION ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-100 Historic District Name: King William Applicant: Jake Jazdzewski Request: Relocation of rear accessory structure within lot, exterior modifications, window replacement City Council Dist.: 1]
READY FOR, GO AHEAD.ITEM NUMBER 23 H C R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 100, ADDRESS, FOUR 15 MISSION.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FINAL APPROVAL TO JUAN RELOCATE THE EXISTING MULTI-STORY REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST.
TWO, REMOVE AN EXTERIOR STAIRCASE.
THREE, PERFORM VARIOUS FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS TO INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF A DOOR AND AN AWNING.
ON THE SECOND STORY WITH A WINDOW, THE ENCLOSURE OF A WINDOW ON THE REAR FOOT SIDE OF THE SIDING AND THE INSTALLATION OF SLIDING DOORS.
FOUR, ENCLOS AN EXISTING GARAGE BAY WITH SIDING AND FIVE, REPLACE ALL EXISTING WINDOWS AND DOORS WITH NEW ALUMINUM CLOUD, WOOD, WINDOWS, AND DOORS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE HALF CIRCLE WINDOW ON THE FRONT FACADE AND THE WINDOWS TO BE MODIFIED.
AS NOTED IN, IN ITEM THREE, STAFF RECOMMENDS FINAL APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST ITEM BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH J WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS.
ONE THAT THE APPLICANT RESTORES ALL WOOD WINDOWS IN THE OPENINGS THAT ARE NOT PROPOSED TO BE MODIFIED.
AS NOTED IN FINDINGS G THROUGH J, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AN UPDATED DRAWING SET THAT REFLECTS THE WINDOW RETENTION TO STAFF PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
TWO, THAT ALL NEW WINDOWS TO BE INSTALLED IN NEW OPENINGS OR WHERE NON-ORIGINAL WINDOWS EXIST.
MEET THE STANDARD STIPULATIONS AS
[01:25:01]
LISTED IN THE RECOMMENDATION THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT RETAINS THE EXISTING WINDOWS AND DOORS TO BE REMOVED AND REUSES THEM IN OTHER OPENINGS ON THE STRUCTURE TO INCLUDE THE REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS DETERIORATED BEYOND REPAIR IF APPLICABLE, OR KEEPS THEM ON SITE FOR FUTURE USE.AS NOTED IN FINDINGS E AND F AND FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A DETAILED PLAN FOR STRUCTURE RELOCATION TO INCLUDE STABILIZATION MEASURES AND FOUNDATION DETAILS FOR THE STRUCTURE'S NEW LOCATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HENRY, ON THE LINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE WINDOW REPLACEMENT.
HENRY, CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND SHARE A BIT ABOUT YOUR POSITION? MY NAME IS HENRY TE, I'LL BE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR PERFORMING THE WORK AND, UM, UH, I'LL JUST AGREE AND CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE STAFF, THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.
THEN, MR. CHAIR, IF, UH, SINCE SINCE APPLICANT IS, UH, IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE, UH, UH, FINE WITH, WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER, UH, DISCUSSIONS, I MAKE A MOTION TO MR. CHAIR.
SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF, MR. VELAZQUEZ? UH, YES SIR.
I, I I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.
DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT CO WE DON'T ON THIS ONE.
WE DO, WE DO HAVE A LETTER AND IT, IT, IT JUST POINTS OUT A QUESTION THAT I WANTED TO ASK, AND THIS IS FROM, I BELIEVE KING WILLIAMS, UM, ARE, WHAT ARE THE, UH, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS FOR? AM I ON THE RIGHT? I THINK I'M, I MAY HAVE GONE AN OFF TRACK.
DO WE STAFF, DO WE HAVE A LETTER FROM KING WILLIAM ON THIS ONE? STEPH, IS THERE A LETTER IN THE PACKET? YEAH, SO IT'S, YOU HAVE A LETTER IN YOUR PACKET.
I'M SORRY, IT WASN'T SUBMITTED TO BE READ.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, I'M TRYING TO CATCH UP WITH THE RIGHT DOCUMENTS.
OKAY, WELL, I, I'M TRYING, I WANNA MAKE THE MOTION AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE.
SO, UM, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER, UH, COMMENTS AND NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I MOVE, UH, UH, FOR THE, UH, UH, APPROVAL OF, UM, OF, UH, I'M LOOKING AT THE ADDRESS.
IS IT 4 4 4 1 5 MISSION STAFF COULD HELP ME.
IS IT 20? THE, THE ADDRESS OF ADDRESS ITEM 23? IT'S FOUR 15 MISSION 4 4 1 5 MISSION WITH, UH, STAFF STIPULATIONS.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? THIS IS COMMISSIONER I SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
AYE FISH, SOMEBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO WALK ME THROUGH PROCESS.
FETZER, ARE YOU THERE? NO, NOT AA.
OKAY, I NEED MY STAFF TO TELL ME IF WE'RE READY FOR ITEM 24.
[25. 21-4417 Address/Description: 310 FLORIDA ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-265 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: Window Expo Request: Window replacement City Council Dist.: 1]
ARE READY FOR ITEM NUMBER 25.OKAY, SO WE'RE GONNA GO A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER JUST BASED ON WHO WE HAVE ON THE LINE NOW.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 25 H D R C NUMBER 2021 FLORIDA.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE SEVEN EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS WITH A VINYL REPLACEMENT PRODUCT.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH E IF THE H D R C IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE WINDOW REPLACEMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALLS FULLY WOOD WINDOWS THAT MEET STAFF STANDARD WINDOW STIPULATIONS AND SUBMITS UPDATED SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
AND THE OWNER, ERIN CAN WHO IS ON THE LINE.
ERIN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR REQUEST AT THIS TIME? UM, NO.
SO IF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER, SHE IS ON THE LINE.
BEFORE WE GET TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO, NOT FOR THIS ONE.
SO NOW COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS? MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
[01:30:01]
STAFF HAD A CHANCE OF THE SITE AND EVALUATE THE WINDOWS FROM THE EXTERIOR, THE CONDITION OF THE WINDOWS? YES.AND, UH, COULD YOU JUST STATE YOUR FINDING, WERE THEY IN GENERALLY IN REPAIRABLE CONDITION OR WERE THERE A NUMBER OF WINDOWS THAT, UH, YOU WOULD DEEM ELIGIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT? THEY DID APPEAR TO BE IN REPAIRABLE CONDITION.
UM, STAFF DID OBSERVE SOME DAMAGED AND PEELING OR CHIPPING PAINT.
SOME OF THE WINDOWS MAY BE PAINTED SHUT.
UM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF SOME BROKEN CORDS AND POTENTIALLY SOME LOOSE GLASS.
UM, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THE WINDOWS WERE LARGELY REPAIRABLE.
UM, I, I GENERALLY CONCUR WITH STAFF, UH, FINDINGS HERE.
THE GUIDELINES, UM, PRETTY SPECIFIC ABOUT CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES AND WINDOWS ESPECIALLY, UH, SORT WOOD WINDOWS OR KEY PIECE OF THE CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES.
UM, IF, IF THERE IS A WINDOW THAT IS BEYOND REPAIR, STAFF CAN, UH, BE PROVIDED, UH, PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE THAT IT'S BEYOND REPAIR.
AND I THINK APPROVAL FOR, UH, REPLACEMENT IN KIND, WHICH MEANS IN A WOOD WINDOW TO THE SAME PROFILE AS WHAT WAS THERE AS APPROPRIATE.
SO, UM, I'M AFRAID I WOULD MOVE TO DENY THE APPLICATION.
IS THIS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ? I SECOND.
DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE.
ARE WE READY FOR ITEM 24? OKAY, SO WE'RE STILL TRYING TO GET THAT APPLICANT.
[26. 21-4393 Address/Description: 718 LABOR ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-225 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: Anthony Guajardo/Clearsite Construction Request: Roof replacement and pitch changes City Council Dist.: 1]
WE'LL MOVE ON TO, UH, ITEM 26 7 1 8 LABOUR.EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? JUST MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T MUTE EDWARD.
UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 26 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 2 25 7 15 7 14 7 16 7 18 LABOR.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE EXISTING ROOF SLOPE TO FEATURE SHED PROFILE.
ALSO REPLACE THE EXISTING ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF WITH A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF.
STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDING E STAFF RECOMMENDS IN KIND REPAIRS OF THE EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE.
HAVE THE APPLICANT MR. ANTHONY GUDO ON THE LINE NOW, MR. BODO, ARE YOU READY? UH, YES.
UM, I'VE, I'VE BEEN WAITING QUITE A WHILE TO GET THIS APPROVED AND IN THE MEANTIME MY ROOF HAS BEEN LEAKING WITH THIS WEATHER WE'VE BEEN HAVING, HAS DONE A LOT OF DAMAGE AND I'M TRYING TO GET THIS RESOLVED.
UH, I SPENT A LOT OF MONEY AND I'M GONNA SPEND A LOT MORE MONEY, UH, REPAIRING THE DAMAGES, UM, THAT THE ROOF HAS CAUSED THE LEAKY ROOF.
ANYWAY, I'D LIKE TO GET THIS APPROVED, UM, WITH YOU GUYS AND SEE IF WE CAN GET THIS RESOLVED SO I CAN, UH, UH, DRY IN MY, MY BUILDING.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
I HAD A A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE, UH, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING.
UH, YES, LET'S GET TO PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST.
OH, EXCUSE ME, SORRY, BEING AHEAD OF MYSELF.
UM, JUST ONE FROM PATTY ZIONS, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO, CONCURS WITH THE O H P STAFF.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK AT 7 1 8 LABOUR STREET.
PERMITS FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED REGARDLESS OF HISTORIC STATUS WHEN AN OWNER BYPASSES THE PROCESS OF MUNICIPAL LAW BY DOING WORK WITHOUT PERMITS AND POINTS TO THE NEED FOR STRICTER PEN STRICTER PENALTIES AND STIFFER FINES FOR VIOLATORS.
UM, THAT'S THE ONLY ONE WE HAVE.
ALRIGHT, SO COMMISSIONER FISH YOUR QUESTION.
I WAS JUST REQUESTING A REPORT FROM THE D R C I WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND.
YES, I WAS AT THAT D R C AND HAD SEVERAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. RICARDO.
ONE WAS, UH, IF WE LOOK AT PHOTO SEVEN, THE EXISTING, UH, ELEVATION THERE APPEARED TO BE A VERY SHALLOW PITCH GABLE ROOF ORIGINALLY THAT HAS BEEN MODIFIED OVER THE YEARS TO, UH, ACCOMMODATE A REAR ADDITION WHO'S, UH, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS THE, THE LOW EVE OF THAT ROOF AND IT SLOPES UP
[01:35:01]
FROM THIS ELEVATION.SO AT THE, YOU CAN'T SEE IT IN THIS PHOTO, BUT AT THE FAR END OR MIDWAY THROUGH THE STRUCTURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, SHED ROOF OF THE ADDITION IS HIGHER THAN THE SHED ROOF OF THE, UH, MAIN STRUCTURE.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE ROOF IMAGE, UH, PHOTO SIX, YOU CAN SORT OF SEE THAT CONDITION.
UH, ONE QUESTION I HAD FOR MR. HUARDO WAS, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO COME BACK WITH A SHALLOW GABLE, UH, PITCHED ROOF THAT ON THE REAR OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE, THAT THE EAVE WAS HIGHER THAN THE, UM, HIGH PART OF THE ADDITION ROOF? UH, IT WOULD RAISE THE ROOF A LITTLE BIT, UH, FROM WHAT IT IS NOW, BUT, UH, IT WOULD SHED ON, THERE COULD BE A GUTTER OR IT COULD SHED ONTO THE ROOF OF THE REAR ADDITION AND IT WOULD KEEP THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF ANY MODIFICATION TO THE, UM, SLOPE, UH, OF THE ROOF TO A MINIMUM.
UH, AND I BELIEVE MR. HUARDO ADDRESSED THAT IN THE LETTER TO THE COMMISSION, UH, FEELING THAT IT WAS STILL GONNA BE A DRAINAGE ISSUE.
UM, NOTHING, NO CONCLUSIONS WERE MADE.
IT WAS JUST A IT SUGGESTION THAT, THAT HE STUDIED THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT HE IS PROPOSING.
THIS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ.
UH, I WAS AT THE FRONT END OF THE D R C AND THEN I HAD TO LEAVE, BUT I I, I, I'M GONNA CONCUR WITH, WITH, UH, THE CHAIRMAN THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THE, IN THE, IN THE MYRIAD OF SOLUTIONS AVAILABLE, RIGHT? YOU CAN, YOU, YOU CAN COME UP WITH ANY SOLUTION THAT THAT'LL GET THE WATER OFF THE ROOF.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND WHAT IS REQUIRED WITH RESPECT TO, UH, REVIEW AND ALL OF THAT, ALL, ALL, ALL OF THOSE THINGS, UH, HAVING BEEN, UH, KIND OF WELL OVER, OVER PAST, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, THAT THAT PROCESS WAS NOT, UM, UH, GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP FIND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE RIGHT SOLUTION.
I THINK THAT INVESTMENT THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT TALKS ABOUT IS AN INVESTMENT THAT WAS MADE BECAUSE THE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
ALTHOUGH I, I DO WANNA MAKE A COMMENT, UH, MR. CHAIR, THE COMMENT ABOUT THE, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY SAID, I JUST WANNA MAKE, MAKE VERY CLEAR, AT LEAST FOR THE PART OF THIS COMMISSIONER THAT, UH, CONSEQUENCES AND, AND, UH, AND FEE FI FINES AND ALL THAT, I, I, I HAVE NEVER SEEN AS THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION THAT, THAT OUR, YOU KNOW, KIND OF STEADFAST OBLIGATION IS TO, UH, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR ROLE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE BUILDING ITSELF.
AND IT, IT, I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES, CHANGES THE FACT THAT THAT, THAT THIS, THAT THE SOLUTION THAT'S BEFORE US IS A SOLUTION THAT CLEARLY WAS A SOLUTION THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH A D R C.
AND I WOULD SAY TO THE APPLICANT THAT IF THE APPLICANT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS, THAT THE END RESULT IS GONNA BE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S ASSET HERE.
UH, BUT, BUT, UH, AGAIN, I THINK WE OPENED THE D R C I, I KNOW THAT, THAT, THAT MY COMMENTS WERE PRETTY, PRETTY STABLE AND, AND, AND FRIDAY, AND I THINK THE BEST ADVICE TO THIS APPLICANT IS THAT CLEARLY THE SOLUTION THAT'S BEEN PUT BEFORE THIS COMMISSION IS, IS, IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION.
ANOTHER THING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THE PITCH OF THESE TRUSSES THAT WERE DESIGNED WERE DESIGNED FOR A, EITHER A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF OR A, UH, ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF.
UM, AND AS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ SAID, IF OTHER ALTERNATIVES HAVE BEEN STUDIED SUCH AS A, UH, MODIFIED BITUMEN ROLLED ROOF, OR A SINGLE PLY MEMBRANE ROOF, THOSE HAVE MUCH, UH, THOSE CAN HAVE MUCH FLATTER, UH, SLOPES.
UH, SO THE, AGAIN, THE IMPACT OF THIS, THIS LARGE TRUSS WOULD'VE BEEN, UM, MINIMIZED IF, UH, ALTERNATIVE ROOFING MATERIALS HAD BEEN RESEARCHED.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
SO I, UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE, THE, UH, TIMELINESS OF NEEDING TO FIND A SOLUTION HERE, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE WORK THAT WAS DONE, UH,
[01:40:01]
WITHOUT, UH, REVIEW, APPROVAL OR A PERMIT, UH, WE CAN'T IMAGINE A WAY THAT, THAT, THAT WOULD BE, UH, CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE, UH, IN TERMS OF AN ACTION FROM THIS COMMITTEE TODAY TO GET THE APPLICANT MOVING FORWARD, TO GET THE BUILDING CLO, UH, ENCLOSED AND REPAIRED AND GET THE STRUCTURE STABILIZED, I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE.UH, OBVIOUSLY LOW SLOPE ROOFS EXIST AND THEY CAN BE, UM, REPAIRED, UH, OR, UH, REBUILT WHERE THEY'RE BEYOND REPAIR, BUT THE FINISH OF THE ROOF, UH, THERE ARE APPROPRIATE MATERIALS FOR LOW SLOPE ROOFS.
I THINK THE REALITY OF THIS SITUATION, THIS BUILDING IS IT'S HISTORICALLY A LOW SLOPE ROOF.
IN THE IMAGE THAT WE SEE ON THE SCREEN, WE CAN SEE THAT THERE WAS, UH, MAYBE A SLIGHT RIDGE AND THAT GABLE GOING FRONT AND BACK.
UM, I THINK, UH, STAFF COULD ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE THE RESTORATION OF THAT ORIGINAL HISTORIC ROOF OR HISTORIC ROOF, OR THE RESTORATION REPAIR OF, UH, THE LATER ADDITION WITH THE LIFT ON THE REAR SIDE, CREATING A MORE SINGULAR SLOPE TO THE FRONT.
I THINK STAFF CAN APPROVE THOSE, UM, IN NO TIME.
SO, CAN I ADMINISTRATIVELY OBJECT? EXCUSE ME.
COULD I INTERJECT FOR A MINUTE? SURE.
IT'S A ONE AND A HALF AND 12, WHICH THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF, UH, SLOPE, UH, IT WAS THE, THE LEAST I COULD OF A SLOPE I COULD GET.
AND I TRIED TO GET MORE, BUT I COULDN'T, BUT I HAD NO IDEA HOW, UH, PATCHED UP THE ROOF WAS TO BEGIN WITH.
I CANNOT HAVE THE ROOF FLOAT TO THE CENTER RIDGE AND THEN BECOME FLAT LIKE IT WAS BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE DID SOME REALLY BAD WORK.
I CANNOT, IT CANNOT REPLICATE THAT, THAT KIND OF WORK.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE ROOF.
WHOEVER DID THAT WORK, UH, WASN'T DONE RIGHT.
I CAN'T PUT ANOTHER ROOF THE SAME WAY AS THE ONE THAT WAS ON THERE THAT, THAT FAILED.
UM, CO GO AHEAD, MR. WITH MR. CHAIR, WITH YOUR PERMISSION.
WE'RE, WE'RE IN, IN, IN DIALOGUE HERE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS.
I'D LIKE TO KIND OF ADDRESS, UH, COMMISSIONER FISHER'S COMMENTS, UH, OR, OR, YOU KNOW, HAVE ENTER INTO A DI A DIALOGUE WITH YOU COMMISSIONER.
UM, THE, THE, UM, FOR, FOR MY VIEWPOINT, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER, I, I DON'T, I DON'T PERSONALLY LIKE TO BE, YOU KNOW, A HARD EDGE ON ANY DECISIONS REALLY, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH.
UM, BUT THE THING IS, IT'S SITTING AND LOOKING AT A, AT A SOLUTION THAT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, I GUESS IT, IT, IT TUGS IT IN SOME CASES IT EXPERIENCE AND KIND OF DESIGN WISDOM, RIGHT? AND, UH, I HAVE A HARD TIME LOOKING AT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS, UM, FOR MY PART, ANYTHING LESS THAN SOMEONE REALLY GEARING THIS, THIS, THIS PERSON UP IN A DIRECTION WHERE, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF, IF HE WENT TO A GUY THAT SOLD VACUUM CLEANERS, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS SOLUTION, THEY WOULD'VE SOLD HIM A VACUUM CLEANER.
BUT IT, IT, IT DOESN'T MAKE IT A GOOD SOLUTION.
HOWEVER, UM, I I, I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, LISTENING TO THE SPIRIT OF YOUR COMMENTS, IF YOU FEEL LIKE, LIKE THIS APPLICANT IS IN A CORNER AND THAT, THAT THERE'S, THERE'S SO MANY PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED THAT, UM, THAT THERE'S A WAY TO FIND, UH, A, AN APPROPRIATE, UM, UH, A AESTHETIC OR FACADE I'D BE TOTAL IN SUPPORT OF, OF, OF TAKING THE CHAINS OFF OF THIS APPLICANT.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE FINDING, FINDING THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE FREEDOM FOR, FOR A PERSON IN A SITUATION TO BE ABLE TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.
I, I, I WORRY ABOUT THE, THE, THE PRECEDENT, UH, BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A BLATANT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, EARLY IN, EARLY INVESTMENT, THEY GOT AHEAD OF THE, THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE, THE SOLUTION.
BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW I APPRECIATE YOUR LANGUAGE AND, AND IF, IF IT WAS THE WILL OF THE, OF THE COMMISSION AND IF, AND IF THERE WAS A WAY TO WORD IT IN A WAY, ESPECIALLY THE WAY THAT THE APPLICANT JUST MENTIONED IT, HOWEVER, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL, RIGHT? BECAUSE A PERSON CAN COME AND SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, I'M IN A SITUATION AND I, AND IN SOME CASES IT'S GONNA BE VERY TRUE, RIGHT? IT'S JUST, I THINK THAT THAT HAS TO BE WEIGHTED.
IS IT WHETHER THAT'S, THAT'S THE, I DON'T MEAN THE HUMAN TRUTH, RIGHT? BUT THE ARCHITECTURAL TRUTH OF THIS SITUATION, RIGHT? COMMISSIONER? I'M, UM, SURE
UM, I, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, THE, WHAT IS, WHAT IS PROPOSED, WHAT WAS DONE BY THE ADDITION OF THE STEEPER SLOPE TRUSSES PUT ON TOP OF THE HISTORIC EXISTING ROOF AT A SLOPE THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE A METAL ROOF IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
[01:45:01]
WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE IS, UH, THE REPAIR OF THE HISTORIC, THE REPAIR AND OR RECONSTRUCTION.IF, IF IT CANNOT BE REPAIRED OF THE HISTORIC ROOF PROFILE, WHICH HAD AN EARLIER MODIFICATION, THAT EARLIER MODIFICATION WITH A SMALL LIFT TO THE REAR OF THE LOT COULD BE MAINTAINED AND INCORPORATED IN, OR IT COULD BE RESTORED BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL HISTORIC CONDITION.
THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT REPAIRS OVER TIME WERE NOT DONE APPROPRIATELY.
AND IT'S AT A STATE WHERE RECONSTRUCTION, UH, MIGHT BE, UH, THE ONLY OPTION BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN A REPAIRABLE STATE.
AND, AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, I THINK RECONSTRUCTION IS APPROPRIATE, BUT IT'S GONNA BE RECONSTRUCTION IN ITS ORIGINAL HISTORIC CONFIGURATION.
SO, UM, I THINK WE CAN MOVE, UH, THIS ISN'T NECESSARY BECAUSE STAFF CAN APPROVE THIS ADMINISTRATIVELY, AND IT DOESN'T NEED TO COME TO THE COMMISSION FOR AN APPROVAL ON THIS.
UH, BUT I BELIEVE I CAN MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE RESTORATION AND IF, UH, REPAIR IS NOT POSSIBLE IN AREAS THAT THOSE AREAS BE RECONSTRUCTED, UH, OF THE HISTORIC ROOF IN ITS HISTORIC CONFIGURATION.
SETH, IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH? CAN WE DO THAT? UM, WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, COMMISSIONER FISH, THE, THE ITEM THAT'S REQUESTED IS, IS THE NEW ROOF.
SO I UNDERSTAND, OKAY, WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION ON A REPAIR REQUEST, BUT CERTAINLY, UM, ANY OF THOSE OPTIONS, YOUR COMMENTS ARE ON THE RECORD, STAFF WOULD KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY IF THE APPLICANT WAS, AND, AND JUST IF STAFF COULD CONCUR THAT THE REPAIR OR NECESSARY REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING HISTORIC ROOF IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND DOES NOT HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND I WILL EVEN STATE, LIKE, I BELIEVE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM HERE, UM, JUST DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY GET IN THERE AND WHAT THEY, THEY FIND WHAT THE STRUCTURE CAN SUPPORT.
IF YOU KNOW A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXTRA SLOPE IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO, TO ACCOMPLISH THIS FOR A LONG-TERM, UH, SOLUTION, THEN STAFF IS OPEN TO THAT CO.
COREY, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, COREY.
FIRST, FIRST, RIGHT? TRUST IS ABOUT SPAN, NOT ABOUT, OKAY.
IS THE TRUST BECAUSE OF THE SPAN OR IS THE TRUST JUST JUST THE WAY TO ABSORB THE, THE NEGATIVE SLOPE ON THE BOTTOM AND THE POSITIVE SLOPE ON THE TOP? I MEAN, WAS THE TRUST REALLY JUST A FUNCTION OF SLOPE? I, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THE TRUSSES WERE RECOMMENDED, SO, SO STAFF DOESN'T HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING, BUT, BUT STAFF, UM, AND I APPRECIATE THAT, SIR.
LET ME GET IT, LET ME SEE WHAT STAFF KNOWS FIRST.
SO STAFF DOESN'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHETHER THE, THE, THE TRUS IS ABOUT SPAN, LOAD BEARING NEED, THE NEED FOR LOAD BEARING.
I, I'M GONNA RELY ON THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER WHY THOSE TRUSSES WERE RECOMMENDED FOR THIS BUILDING.
WELL, THE TRUSSES, UM, I ASKED FOR THE MINIMAL SLOPE, AND THAT IS THE MINIMAL SLOPE REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS ON THERE BEFORE.
UM, IT'S WHAT I, I ASKED FOR THE MINIMAL SLOPE AND I GOT IT.
AND THOSE WERE THE TRUSSES THAT WERE, WERE GIVEN TO ME.
THEY, THEY WERE ENGINEERED FOR A, A ROOF OR A STANDING SEA ROOF, A COMPOSITION SINGLE OR ROLL ROOF, OR A STANDING SEAM ROOF.
UM, I, I GAVE 'EM THE DISTANCES AND THE SPANS, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH.
THAT'S WHAT THEY CALCULATED THAT I NEEDED TO MAKE IT DRAIN.
AND OBVIOUSLY WITH THIS, I CAN GET THE WATER OFF THE ROOF INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH THE ROOF LIKE IT HAS BEEN FOR 10 YEARS AND OR SO OR MORE.
AND, UH, NA AND WE'VE HAD SEVERAL REPAIRS THAT WE'VE DONE, BUT THEY'VE NEVER HELD UP LONG ENOUGH BECAUSE IT, IT JUST, IT WASN'T DONE CORRECTLY TO BEGIN WITH.
AND, UH, IT, IT, IT, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE TRUSSES YOU WANTED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE ELSE THAT'S GONNA OPEN UP A WHOLE OTHER CAN OF WORMS OF, OKAY, WHAT DO WE DO AND WHAT AM I GONNA BE ALLOWED TO DO? UM, CONSIDERING IF YOU'RE GONNA GO BACK, IF YOU WANT A GABLE ROOF, I'M GONNA END UP BEING THE, THE RIDGE WILL PROBABLY BE AS HIGH AS MY, MY, UH, TRUSSES ARE NOW.
AND, UM, THEN THERE'S, UH, SEVERAL DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT I DON'T KNOW.
THIS IS COMM, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
WE CAN CLEAR THIS UP PRETTY QUICKLY.
UM, I, I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION WILL SUPPORT THE REPAIR OR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ROOF AT VERY NEAR ITS CURRENT SLOPES, NOT A GABLE ROOF THAT IS, UH, UH, INCREASED UP TO A DEGREE, UH, THAT YOU'RE, THAT YOU'RE ILLUSTRATING WITH THE TRESSES ON, ON THE SITE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE, A REASONABLE WAY FORWARD.
THIS IS A LOW SLOPE ROOF STRUCTURE, A A FLAT KIND OF ROOF AND, UH, SOMETHING AT THE PITCH THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
I JUST, I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE WOULD, WOULD BE
[01:50:01]
ACCEPTABLE.SO WHEN YOU'RE MAKING THE, IT'S A MINIMAL, IT'S A MINIMAL SLOPE.
IT'S THE, IT'S THE, THE LEASE YOU CAN PUT ON THE ROOF BE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT BEFORE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
AND, AND IT WAS NOT A FUNCTIONAL ROOF.
SO THE RE THE ROOF BEFORE, I BELIEVE WAS A MODIFIED BIT ROOF, CORRECT? IT WAS A WHAT? UM, IT WAS A, IT WAS A LOW SLOPE ROOF.
IT, THERE WAS, YOU'D SEE BLACK TAR AND GRAVEL ON IT.
IT WASN'T SHINGLE, IT DID NOT HAVE GRAVEL.
IT, IT HAD ROLLED ROOFING ON IT DID NOT HAVE A GRAVEL ROOF ROLL ROOF.
AND IT ONLY SLOPED, IT ONLY SLOPED HALF, HALF THE SPAN OF THE BUILDING.
SO IT SLOPED TO THE CENTER OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT FLIPPED, FLATTENED OUT.
NOBODY HAS A ROOFED SLOPE HALFWAY THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING AND THEN STOPS AND FLATTENS OUT.
THE, THE ROLL ROOFING COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF WILL NOT, WILL NOT DRAIN THAT WAY.
I DON'T THINK ROLL ROOFING IS APPROPRIATE AT THAT SLOPE.
THERE ARE ROOFING, THERE ARE ROOFING APPLICATIONS THAT PROBABLY PREVIOUSLY EXISTED ON THIS STRUCTURE THAT ARE APPROPRIATE AT THOSE LOW SLOPES.
BUT BARRING THAT, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, PERHAPS I'M, I'M NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE APPLICANT IS DESCRIBING WITH THE FLATTENING OUT PART.
IF YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS ON HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MOVE THE BALL ON THIS IN ALL EARS.
WELL, A AGAIN, IF, IF OTHER ROOFING MATERIALS HAD BEEN INVESTIGATED, A MODIFIED BITUMEN MEMBRANE ROOF CAN GO AS FLAT AS QUARTER INCH PER FOOT.
UM, AND SINGLE-PLY MEMBRANE ROOFS ARE IN THAT RANGE AS OPPOSED TO SEVERAL INCHES PER FOOT RISE.
SO, UM, I THINK GOING BACK WITH A DIFFERENT ROOFING MATERIAL THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE SUCH A STEEP SLOPE, UH, ONE AND A HALF TO 12 OR TWO TO 12 AS IS PROPOSED, I THINK, UH, WITH SOME, UH, REBUILDING REPAIRS OF THE EXISTING ROOFING, UH, MY SENSE IS THAT IT, THE APPLICANT COULD GET TO A WATERTIGHT ROOF SYSTEM.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE, UH, TAKEN ON ON THIS TODAY.
UM, UH, I WOULD MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THAT'S A MOTION TO DENY.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OVER ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ? AYE BISHOP? AYE.
GIBBS GIS, CAN YOU REPEAT PLEASE? SURE.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT MR. WATO GET IT BACK WITH STAFF AND SEE WHAT NEXT STEPS HE WOULD NEED TO TAKE.
[24. 21-4473 Address/Description: 225 W ELSMERE PLACE HDRC Case No.: 2021-284 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Bradley Tipper Request: Removal of side patio, construction of a 1-story side addition, construction of a rear enclosed patio City Council Dist.: 1]
AGAIN FOR ITEM 24.RACHEL, ARE YOU THERE? YES, GO AHEAD.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 24 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2021 DASH 2 84 2 25 WEST ELSMERE PLACE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO ONE, REMOVE THE EXISTING SIDE PATIO AND AWNING ON THE EAST ELEVATION.
CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 285 SQUARE FOOT ONE STORY SIDE.
ADDITION THREE, CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 339 SQUARE FOOT REAR COVERED PATIO ENCLOSURE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE EXISTING SIDE PORCH AND AWNING BASED ON FINDING C.
STAFF RECOMMENDS CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE SIDE ADDITION BASED ON FINDING D THROUGH J WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION, ONE THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SIDE ADDITION THAT IS SET BACK FROM THE FRONT FACADE AND IS SUBORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPAL'S FACADE BASED ON FINDING D AND THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATES AN OFFSET OR REVEAL TO DISTINGUISH THE ADDITION FROM THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT UPDATED ELEVATION DRAWINGS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE H D R C FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
TWO, THAT THE WINDOWS PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL ARE SALVAGED AND USED IN THE NEW ADDITION OR STORED ON THE PROPERTY FOR FUTURE USE.
THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS FINAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO RETURNING TO THE H G R C FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
AND FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A LANDSCAPING PLAN TO STAFF FOR REVIEW PRIOR RETURNING TO THE H D R C BASED ON FINDING L ITEM THREE STAFF RECOMMENDS CONCEPTUAL
[01:55:01]
APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A REAR PATIO ENCLOSURE BASED ON FINDING K AND THE OWNER AND APPLICANT.GEORGIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING YOUR REQUEST? HI, NICE TO MEET YOU ALL.
UM, WE'RE EXCITED TO START WORK ON RENOVATING OUR NEW HOME AND, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE MANY OF THE THINGS HERE, UM, ARE REASONABLE AND WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH, UM, I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS ON A COUPLE OF THE ITEMS. YES, MA'AM.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YOU'D LIKE TO, OH, YES.
DISCUSS, UM, YOUR REQUEST OR YOUR, UH, PROTEST AGAINST STAFF STIPULATION TO REFRESH THE SITE EDITION THAT'S PROPOSED.
CAN DO YOU MIND REPEATING THAT? OH, I'M SO SORRY.
YES, I WAS SAYING THAT YOU, UM, CAN SPEAK AT THIS TIME ABOUT, UM, HOW YOU WOULD LIKE THE SIDE ADDITION PROPOSED TO BE FLUSHED WITH THE FRONT FACADE INSTEAD OF RECESSED AS IN STAFF STIPULATION.
UM, WE ARE ACTUALLY FINE WITH, UM, RECESSING IT BACK FROM THE, YOU KNOW, FRONT ELEVATION.
I KNOW THAT IT WAS NOTED THAT TO, YOU KNOW, BE SUBORDINATE BY FOUR INCHES, UM, FROM THE FRONT FACE.
WE CAN MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT, UM, IN THE UPDATED ELEVATIONS THAT WILL INCLUDE IN THE FINALIZED PLAN.
UM, WE'RE ALSO FINE WITH THE ADJUSTMENTS, UH, CONCERNING THE 12 INCH THICK WALLS AND THE SIX INCH INSET WINDOWS.
MR. CHAIRMAN IS COMMISSIONER FISH? YES, SIR.
UM, JUST A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
UM, IS THERE, IS THERE A STIPULATION THAT THE, THAT SPECIFICALLY HAS SOME CON THAT YOU HAVE SOME CONCERN OR QUESTION ABOUT? YEAH.
UM, SO THE ONE, UH, AREA OF CONCERN WAS, UH, PERTAINING TO THE SCALE OF THE ARCH WINDOWS.
UM, I KNOW THAT THEY, UH, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE A LITTLE TOO LARGE IN SCALE, UM, IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION COMPARATIVELY TO THE FRONT ENTRANCE, UM, ARCH OPENING.
AND I JUST WAS WONDERING IF, UM, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPAND ON, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU SEE FIT AS A SOLUTION THERE.
CAN STAFF, CAN STAFF ELABORATE ABOUT THE CONCERN? YES, JUST CAN STAFF CAN CLARIFY.
UM, THE OWNER IS SPEAKING TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED REGARDING THIS REQUEST AND COREY NOW MIGHT BE A NIGHT OF THE TIME TO READ THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
SO THAT'S THE COMMISSIONER WHO ARE AWARE OF THE, OF THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED.
UM, IF, UH, THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS DURING COMMISSIONERS, I CAN PROCEED WITH THAT.
UM, THIS COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS, UH, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO SUPPORTS THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE REHABILITATION AND ADDITIONS PROPOSED FOR 2 25 WEST ELSMERE.
UH, THIS HOUSE IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL STYLE AND THE ESSENCE CHAR ESSENTIAL CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS OF THAT DESIGN MUST BE RETAINED.
THESE INCLUDE THE STUCCO FINISH AT THE MAIN FACADE AT THE DOUBLED WINDOWS WITH THEIR INTERMEDIATE FRAMING MEMBERS AND FLAKING SHUTTERS.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE MASSING ON THE MAIN FACADE IS AN ESSENTIAL CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURE.
WHILE A SIDE ADDITION IS APPROPRIATE, IT MUST BE RECESSED FROM AND SUBSERVIENT TO THE ORIGINAL FACADE RATHER THAN ALTERING, UH, THE FRONT PROFILE OF THIS, OF THIS LANDMARK HOUSE.
UM, THE NEXT COMMENT COMES FROM PAUL KENNISON, UH, THE MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
UM, THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE BASICALLY CONCURS, UH, WITH O H P STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WITH THE STIPULATIONS NOTED.
IN ADDITION, WE WOULD OFFER THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
ONE, WE AGREE WITH O H P, THE PROPOSED SOUTHEAST CORNER SUNROOM EXTERIOR WALL BE SET BACK AT LEAST FOUR INCHES IN ORDER, UM, THAT THE NEW WALL, AN EXISTING WALL, WILL BE ON DIFFERENT, ON DIFFERENT PLANES.
TWO, THE NEW CURVED WALL CONNECTION AT THE SOUTH EL ELEVATION SHOULD BE FINESSE.
SO THE CONNECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A FEATHER EDGE.
THREE, THE NEW SUNROOM WALLS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES THICK TO PROVIDE SCALE TO THE WALL TOPS AND OPENINGS.
FOUR, THE NEW ARCHED WINDOWS SHOULD BE SET BACK AND THE OPENINGS AT LEAST SIX INCHES FROM THE EXTERIOR.
THE SCALE OF THE LARGE ARCHED OPENING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE FRONT ELEVATION OVERCOMES THE SMALLER ARCH FRONT ENTRY DOOR.
UM, AND IT SHOULD BE STUDIED FOR A BETTER SOLUTION, UM, AS IT REDUCES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FRONT DOOR.
[02:00:01]
YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATION.MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH.
UM, I SHARE SOME OF MR. KINISONS, UM, CONCERNS, UH, ESPECIALLY AS THEY'RE KIND OF PRESENTED IN THE, THE WINDOWING, THE, THE RENDERING HERE.
UH, BUT I THINK MOST OF THOSE ARE RESOLVED BY STAFF STIPULATIONS.
SO JUST IN ADDITION TO STAFF STIPULATIONS, I WOULD PAY ATTENTION.
JUST, JUST BE AWARE OF THOSE COMMENTS.
AND WHAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO IS HAVE, UH, A FOLLOW-UP MEETING WITH THE D R C AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OR LANGUAGE OR, UH, POSSIBILITIES.
UH, THEY MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT OR NEED, UH, OPTIONS ON THAT'S A, A, A GOOD VENUE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TODAY, BUT IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN HAVING A SMALLER FORMAT MEETING TO DISCUSS ANY ASPECT OF STIPULATIONS, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO SO.
SO I'D MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS.
THIS IS COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ.
I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION MR. CHAIR? I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE, UM, YOU KNOW, COMMENT TO THE, TO THE APPLICANT THAT ANOTHER, ANOTHER GOOD SOLUTION WOULD BE TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE AND, AND THE, THE, UM, UH, THE ADVICE THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND BY THE H D R C TO GO AND REDRAW THAT.
BECAUSE AT AT ONE END IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, UH, CONSTRAINTS ON HOW TO, HOW TO PASS THIS WITH, WITH THE, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, AS, AS, AS A, A VOICED IN THE MOTION, BUT IT'S YOUR HOUSE TOO.
AND IF YOU HAVE THE TIME TO GO BACK AND DRAFT, YOU MAY SEE SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T LIKE AND YOU MAY NEED TO ALTER IT RIGHT.
FOR YOURSELF, EVEN MEANING WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE, OF THE, UH, OF THE, UH, OF, OF THE MOTION.
SO, UM, YOU HAVE THAT AVAILABLE TO YOURSELF AS WELL TO BE ABLE TO DRAFT OUT THAT FOUR INCH.
THAT FOUR INCH MIGHT WANNA BE 12 INCHES.
IT MIGHT YOU, BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT IN TERMS OF A SHADOW LINE, SO IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF MAKING IT SUBORDINATE, BUT YOU MIGHT, YOU MIGHT DISCOVER SOMETHING ELSE OR SOME REACTION TO THE INTERIOR.
SO JUST, UM, TO THE APPLICANT TO KNOW THAT YOU CAN ALSO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE SO THAT YOU CAN GO TO A D R C AND, BUT, BUT HAVE A CHANCE TO GO TO YOUR ARCHITECT AND SEE EXACTLY WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE.
AND, AND MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR.
I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THIS IS FOR CONCEPTUAL, UH, REVIEW.
I THINK THE DOCUMENTATION IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT, SUFFICIENT FOR REVIEW ON THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL.
JUST LET THE APPLICANT KNOW THAT, UM, THEY'D BE RETURNING FOR A FINAL REVIEW, UH, OR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AFTER SOME OF THESE ISSUES ARE INCORPORATED, UH, INTO THE PROJECT AND ILLUSTRATED PRESENTED BACK TO THE COMMISSION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? STAND FOR ROLL CALL PLEASE.
WELL, I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL OUR ITEMS TODAY.
[Approval of HDRC Meeting Minutes for June 2, 2021, and for the Emergency Hearing on June 2, 2021.]
MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES FOR MEETING JUNE 2ND, 2021.COMMISSIONER GIBB AND THE EMERGENCY HEARING ON JUNE 2ND, 2021.
UM, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO ADJOURN.
ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.