* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE HISTORIC DESIGNER REVIEW COMMISSION HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 3RD, 2021, STARTING AT 3:00 PM CAN WE GET THE ROLL CALL? HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE. [Roll Call] GIBBS HERE. FISH. HERE. SINA. HERE. VELAZQUEZ. HERE. OLA HERE. MASUKA CARPENTER. HERE, GROUP. HERE. BOWMAN'S ABSENT. ZERS ABSENT. AND THE PHONE. HERE WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU TO ALL MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR BEING HERE PRESENT ON THIS SOGGY DAY. WE HAVE TRANSLATION SERVICES. ANNOUNCEMENT. THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THERE ARE INTERPRETATION SERVICES AVAILABLE FOR SPANISH. IF THERE'S ANYONE NEEDING THESE SERVICES, YOU CAN FIND THE, UM, THE DEVICES INSIDE THE INTERPRETER CABIN THAT'S LOCATED NEXT TO THE ENTRYWAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [Chairman’s Statement] GIVE THE CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT. THE HISTORIC DESIGNER REVIEW COMMISSION IS AN ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL. I'M SCOTT CARPENTER, VICE CHAIRMAN, ACTING ON BEHALF OF, UH, JEFF FETZER, WHO WILL BE JOINING US SHORTLY. IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION TO ADVISE THE CITY MANAGER AND ALL RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENTS CONCERNING ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS FOR PROPERTIES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS FOR LANDMARKS ON CITY PROPERTY, IN RIVER IMPROVEMENT, OVERLAYS, AND FOR DEMOLITIONS. AND CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, THE COMMISSION SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CAN BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION OF ANY ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA, PLEASE SIGN UP ON THE PUBLIC COMMENTS SHEET. IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO SIGN UP. IF YOU ARE THE OWNER OF OR A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A PROJECT ON THE AGENDA, YOU WILL BE CALLED UPON AS THE CASE IS CALLED. CASE REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE GIVEN NO MORE THAN 20 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE WITH AN ADDITIONAL THREE MINUTES TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. SPEAKERS FOR, OR OPPOSED TO A CASE WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. EACH SPEAKERS MAY ALSO SIGN UP TO YIELD THEIR THREE MINUTES TO ANOTHER SPEAKER WHO HAS SIGNED UP. ANYONE WHO HAS, WHO IS YIELDING THEIR TIME MUST BE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE SPEAKER IS CALLED UPON. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY ARE SIGNED UP FOLLOWING PUBLIC TESTIMONY. ANY COMMISSIONER MAY CALL UPON ANY SPEAKER TO RESPOND TO FURTHER QUESTIONS. 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 STARRED WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROPRIATE CITY PERMITS. AFTER THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATENESS HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AT THIS TIME, PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES AND WE HAVE STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS. WE DO HAVE A FEW. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. UM, FIRST I WANT TO WELCOME ROLAND MOOKA TO THE COMMISSION. HE'S OUR NEW DISTRICT FIVE APPOINTEE. UM, LIVES IN A HISTORIC HOME ON THE WEST SIDE, AND, UH, WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE HIM. UH, YEAH, ROUND OF APPLAUSE, . UM, WE DO HAVE ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS COMING UP RELATED TO PROPOSED U D C AMENDMENTS BY OUR DEPARTMENT O H P. UM, THERE IS A PUBLIC MEETING VIRTUALLY SCHEDULED FOR, UH, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16TH AT FIVE 30 IN THE AFTERNOON. UM, WE HAD STARTED THIS PROCESS KIND OF IN MARCH OF 2020, UH, PRIOR TO THE WHOLE PANDEMIC THING STARTING. UM, AND SO IF YOU ATTENDED THAT MEETING, THIS IS REALLY JUST KIND OF A REFRESHER, A REMINDER TO EVERYONE, UM, THAT HAD BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS, UM, OF WHAT IS KIND OF PROPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND, AND WHAT THE U D C IS AND HOW IT FUNCTIONS. AND SO, UM, THAT IS SORT OF OUR REFRESHER THAT'S AVAILABLE, UM, THIS MID MONTH NOVEMBER. AND THEN AFTER THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY IN DECEMBER, EARLY DECEMBER, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER PUBLIC, UH, MEETING OPPORTUNITIES, [00:05:01] UM, ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2ND, ALSO VIRTUAL, AND THEN A IN-PERSON OPTION FOR SATURDAY, DECEMBER 4TH IN THE MORNING. AND SO THOSE, THOSE MEETING DETAILS ARE ON OUR WEBSITE, UM, SAN ANTONIO.GOV/HISTORIC. UM, AND THEN IF YOU RECEIVE, UM, E-BLAST, UH, ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM OUR DEPARTMENT, THEN YOU SHOULD BE RECEIVING INFORMATION ON THAT AS WELL. UM, AND IF YOU FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA, ON FACEBOOK, YOU'LL SEE THAT THOSE EVENTS ARE POSTED AS WELL. UM, SO IF MORE INFORMATION AND DETAILS FOR THOSE MEETINGS IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS, UM, AS THE, AS THE U C PROCESS MOVES FORWARD, UM, IF WE CAN DRAW OUR ATTENTION NOW TO THE CASE LIST. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE A PRETTY SHORT AGENDA TODAY, UH, FOR H C R C ANYWAY. UM, WE HAVE, UH, NINE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. UM, JUST AN ANNOUNCEMENT, UM, THAT ITEM 2222 OSTROM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT, WILL NOT BE HEARD TODAY. UM, WE DID RECEIVE A FEW PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THAT CASE, BUT THEY WILL NOT BE PLAYED AS THE CASE WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. UM, YOU'LL ALSO NOTE, UM, ON THE CASE LIST, WE HAVE NOTED WHERE THERE ARE, UH, PUBLIC LETTERS AND, UH, SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION OF CASES OR COMMENTS. UM, GENERALLY, UM, THOSE ARE AVAILABLE IN YOUR PACKETS AND WILL NOT BE READ. UM, WE DO HAVE VOICEMAILS THAT WILL BE PLAYED FOR SOME ITEMS AS WELL AS A FEW IN-PERSON SPEAKERS FOR CASES. UM, SO FIRST, LET'S START BY PLAYING THE, ACTUALLY FIRST WE DO NEED, UM, ACTION ON, UH, MINUTES FROM [Approval of Minutes] OCTOBER 20TH. UM, WILL SOMEONE PRESENT A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 20TH? MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 20TH, 2021? WE HAVE, WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, BEFORE WE GET TO CONSENT, [Public Comments] WE HAVE A VOICEMAIL WITH GENERAL COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. SO LET'S PLAY THAT NOW FROM BILLY LAMBERT. YES, THIS IS WILLIAM LAMBERT. I WOULD LIKE THIS MESSAGE READ AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING TODAY. UH, THIS IS NOT AN AGENDA ITEM. UH, WE ARE CALLING ABOUT THE PARK THAT IS LOCATED AT, UH, MICHIGAN AVENUE IN FREDERICKSBURG THAT HAS NOW BEEN DESIGNATED A HISTORIC LANDMARK. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT BEFORE THIS WAS OFFICIALLY DECLARED A LANDMARK, THE CITY PUT AN APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE PARK. UH, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ON THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER, WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEET ON SITE BEFORE ANY STAFF APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT GOES FORWARD. AGAIN, MY NAME IS WILLIAM LAMBERT AND I CAN BE REACHED AT 2 1 0 4 1 7 8 8 4 1. THANK YOU. GOODBYE. OKAY. [CONSENT AGENDA] UH, MOVING TO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY VOICEMAILS TO PLAY. UM, THE IN-PERSON APPLICANT FOR ITEM 22 IS NOT A SPEAKER. SO, UM, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS FROM COMMISSIONERS TO HEAR THOSE INDIVIDUALLY, THEN WE CAN CONSIDER A MOTION FOR THE CONSENT ITEMS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE THE CONSENT, UH, ASCENT, UH, CONSENT ITEMS WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. OKAY. SECOND, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WERE THERE ANY INDIVIDUAL CASES THAT ANY COMMISSIONERS WISH TO PULL FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE CHECKING THAT BOX. ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED, SAY NAY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. YOU MAY PROCEED NOW TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION IF YOU'RE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND YOUR ADDRESS IS 2 21 NEWELL FOR DESIGNATION. EIGHT 16 SOUTH COLORADO, TWO 10 LAVACCA, 1 47 EAST MISSILE TOW FOUR 19 FLORIDA SIX 14 CEDAR 9 35 SOUTH ALAMO, THREE 16 EAST LITTLEWOOD AND 3 0 7 PAROLE PARKWAY. YOUR CASE HAS BEEN APPROVED AND YOU DO NOT NEED TO STAY FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS HEARING OR WATCH VIRTUALLY ON WEBEX. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT A MEMBER OF STAFF, YOUR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OR COMMISSION ACTION LETTER. WE'LL BE PREPARED AND EMAILED TO YOU WITHIN 10 DAYS. H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 4 98 3 26 SINE STREET. THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION REGARDING DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 3 26. SINE [00:10:03] STAFF DID NOT FIND THAT THE PROPERTY MEETS THE THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION. THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 3 26 SINE STREET BASED ON FINDING B. AND I HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION FOR, UH, COMMISSIONERS. YEAH, ONE SECOND. WHILE WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT SCREEN SHARED. THAT'S, YEAH. WE'RE HAVING, WE'RE HAVING A BIT OF TECHNICAL ISSUES. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. SORRY. WE'VE GOT A FROZEN PC OVER HERE [00:15:16] SO WE CAN'T, UH, THERE WE GO. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE VIRTUAL, YOU CAN SEE THE PRESENTATION SLIDE. RIGHT. OKAY. AND JESS, WHY DON'T YOU START OVER AND READ THE CASE INTO THE RECORD AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE PRESENTATION. ALRIGHT, WE ARE ON [10. Address/Description: 326 SEGUIN ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-498 Applicant: Office of Historic Preservation Request: Recommendation for historic landmark designation City Council Dist.: 2] ITEM 10 ON THE AGENDA, H C R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 4 9 8 3 26 STREET. THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION REGARDING DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 3 26 SINE STREET. STAFF DID NOT FIND THAT THE PROPERTY MEETS THE THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION. THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION MAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 3 26 SINE STREET BASED ON FINDING B. LIKE I SAID, I HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION AND THEN WE'LL HEAR A FEW VOICEMAILS. THE PROPERTY AT 3 26 SINE STREET INCLUDES A TWO STORY STONE CLAD PRAIRIE STYLE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, BUILT CIRCA 1930 FOR COLE GLASER AND HOFF. IT'S LOCATED IN THE GOVERNMENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD OF CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO. WESTERN COMPANY L L C CURRENTLY OWNS THE PROPERTY ON MAY 5TH, 2021, JOSEPH HOPEWELL OF JR RAMON DEMOLITION SUBMITTED A DEMOLITION APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY. OWNER, O H P STAFF NOTIFIED THE GOVERNMENT, HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD STAKEHOLDERS AND CONDUCTED RESEARCH DURING THE 30 DAY REVIEW PERIOD PROVIDED BY U D C. AFTER COMPLETING THE REVIEW, O H P STAFF'S RESEARCH DID NOT INDICATE THAT THE PROPERTY MET THREE CRITERIA UNDER U D C. SECTION 35 6 0 7 B. STAFF APPROVED AN ADMINISTRATIVE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION ON JUNE 4TH, 2021. ON JUNE 10TH, 2021, MARLENE HAWKINS SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR A REVIEW OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE STONE CLAD BUILDING AT 3 26 SEIN STREET. ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, THE DEMOLITION AND DESIGNATION COMMITTEE ATTENDED A VIRTUAL SITE VISIT ON JULY 20TH, 2021. ON JULY 21ST, 2021, THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION HEARD THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE STAFF'S ANALYSIS FOUND THAT THE STRUCTURE OF MET CRITERIA THREE AND FIVE, THE H D R C FOUND THE STRUCTURE, MET ADDITIONAL CRITERIA SIX, EIGHT, AND 12 AS OUTLINED IN THE U D C AND APPROVED A FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE FOR 3 26 SINE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS OPPOSED TO DESIGNATION, STAFF DID NOT FIND THAT THE PROPERTY MEETS THE THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION. THE H D R C MAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 3 26 SINE STREET ON SEPTEMBER 16TH. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO BEGIN THE REZONING PROCESS TO INCLUDE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION. THIS CASE REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY OF H D R C IN FAVOR OF DESIGNATION FOR IT TO RETURN TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR FINAL CONSIDERATION. AND WE HAVE THREE VOICEMAILS TO PLAY. WELL, ACTUALLY, BEFORE YOU DO, UM, JESS, UM, WE WILL HEAR FROM, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FIRST. UM, THEN WE'LL PLAY ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND HAVE OUR SPEAKERS PROVIDE COMMENTS, AND THEN THERE'LL BE A CHANCE FOR REBUTTAL BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSION. SO AT THIS POINT, THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT AS THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION FOR THE ZONING CASE. PATRICK, TURN ON YOUR MIC. SHOULD I START OVER? . GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, THREE 10 SOUTH ST. MARY'S, SUITE 2,700. GREAT TO SEE YOU IN PERSON. THIS IS MY FIRST H D R C HEARING IN PERSON. SINCE THE PANDEMIC, UM, I'VE BEEN RETAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER HUGH JOHNS OF J THREE CONSTRUCTION ON THE, HIS REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION. UH, A NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, NEIGHBOR [00:20:01] SUPPLI APPLIED FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION. AS, AS, UH, JESSICA SAID Y'ALL HAD A HEARING, MOVED IT TO COUNCIL, COUNCIL, SAID TO BRING IT BACK. SO HERE WE ARE AT THE BEGINNING OF A REZONING PROCESS TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY. HISTORIC. DO I JUST TELL YOU NEXT? OKAY, NEXT, PLEASE. AND THIS, YOU'VE SEEN THE BUILDING. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A FASCINATING CASE IN THE SENSE THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDING THAT IT IS NOT HISTORIC. BUT YET HERE WE ARE. YOU KNOW, THESE WERE THE, THE THREE POINT, THE FOUR POINTS THAT WERE MADE AT THE INITIAL JULY HEARING. I'M NOT GONNA READ THEM VERBATIM NEXT PLEASE, BUT JUST TO KIND OF HIGHLIGHT THEM. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S MENTIONED THAT THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF THE OLD, HIS SPANISH TRAIL. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THE PROPERTY, OF THE STRUCTURE OF ANY INVOLVEMENT IN ANY OLD, UH, SPANISH TRAIL EXPEDITION EVENT OR ANYTHING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO, SO THAT'S THAT, UH, CRITERIA. ACCLIVITY HAS NOT BEEN MET. NOW, THERE WAS A COLE GLAZER FAMILY MEMBER, RW COLE GLAZER, WHO WAS A THREE STAR GENERAL. HOWEVER, HE WAS IN THE ARMY FROM THE 1930S UNTIL AFTER THE VIETNAM WAR. HE NEVER WORKED AT THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. UH, HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS. HE WAS JUST A FAMILY MEMBER OF THE BUSINESS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS A LETTER FROM JOHN K GLAZER JR. SO THE GENERAL K GLAZER WOULD'VE BEEN HIS GREAT UNCLE. HE STATES IN HIS LETTER THAT HE NEVER ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN THE BUSINESS. HE WAS LISTED AS ONE OF THE OWNERS 'CAUSE IT WAS A FAMILY BUSINESS AND HE PROBABLY RECEIVED FROM INCOME FROM IT. BUT HE WAS NEVER THERE ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS. NEVER WORKED AT THE BUSINESS. UM, THE, THE FAMILY ALSO STATES THAT IT WAS JUST A, A BUILDING. THEY HAD BUILT A CONSTRUCTION OFFICE BASED OFF OF USED MATERIALS, AND THEY'RE NOT OPPOSED TO DEMOLITION IN ANY WAY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THERE HE GOES. SLIDE REALLY IS THE LITTLE OR NO INVOLVEMENT, THE OPERATION OF COAL GLAZER. NEXT SLIDE. SO, YOU KNOW, THEY TALK ABOUT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BUILDING. YES. IT'S LIMESTONE STONE, CLA BUILDING. UM, THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THOSE IN SAN ANTONIO. THE MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT IS FILLED WITH LOTS OF HOMES THAT ARE THAT EXACT SAME CONSTRUCTION AS AN AS IS ALMOST PARK. THIS STRUCTURE IS, IS NOT WORTHY OF SAVING JUST BECAUSE IT HAS LIMESTONE, UH, STRUCTURE AS, UH, I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, FROM A SIDE VISIT WITH SOME OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS, THE WINDOWS WERE RESTORED YEARS AGO, AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOW OLD. THEY'RE NOT THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS. THE PREVIOUS OWNER USED THE PROPERTY AS BASICALLY STORAGE. THEY STORED CARS IN THERE AND USED THE UPSTAIRS FOR FILE STORAGE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY MUST BE THE THREE, THE 16 CRITERIA. STAFF FINDS IT'S NOT ELIGIBLE HISTORIC DESIGNATION. I HONESTLY COULD NOT FIND ONE HISTORIC CRITERIA THAT IT MET. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO, WITH, UH, THE GOVERNMENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, WE BLOCKED WALKED. THESE ARE THE SIGNATURES OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS UP AND DOWN EGINE STREET. WE HAVE ABOUT 14 SIGNATURES. NOW YOU ASK WHY ARE THEY IN SUPPORT OF DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING? THEY WERE BASICALLY ECSTATIC THAT J THREE CONSTRUCTION HAD BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD SOME OF THE HISTORY UNDER THE PREVIOUS OWNER, HE HAD A TENANT WHO HAD A PAPER RECYCLING BUSINESS THAT BASICALLY WAS JUST BOMBING THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH PAPER, UH, DEBRIS ALL OVER THE PLACE. IT WAS IN THE NEWS MULTIPLE TIMES. THE CITY EVEN, UH, REVOKED THE C OF O FOR THE BUSINESS 'CAUSE IT WAS NOT OPERATING UNDER ITS CORRECT ZONING DESIGNATION. SO THAT OWNER HAD TO CLEAN UP THE SITE. HIS NAME WAS, UM, LES HARGIS. HE CLEANED UP THE SITE AND SOLD IT TO J THREE. NOW, J THREE WANTS TO OPERATE A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THERE. THEY WANNA REPLANT THE PROPERTY. THEY WANNA BUILD SOME NEW, UH, OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE STRUCTURES. THEY NEVER INTENDED FOR THE PROPERTY TO, TO THE, FOR THE, FOR THE BUILDING TO BE SAVED. UM, SO IN, IN CLOSING, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. YOU KNOW, J THREE CONSTRUCTION, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF AN ISSUE OF FAIRNESS. YOU KNOW, THEY BUY THIS PROPERTY, IT'S GOT AN OLDER BUILDING. IT'S NOT IN HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT'S NOT DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT. THEY FOLLOW THE NORMAL PROCEDURES. THEY APPLY FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT, UNBE NOTES TO THEM. A A NEIGHBOR THINKS IT'S HISTORIC AND THEY GET STUCK IN THIS, THIS PROCESS, WHICH IS COSTING THEM TIME AND MONEY THEY HAVE TO HIRE SOMEONE LIKE ME. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'D KNOWN IT WAS HISTORIC WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT, THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN THE FIRST PLACE. 'CAUSE THERE'S ANTICIPATION THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO, IF IT'S A HISTORIC STRUCTURE, THAT YOU HAVE TO REHAB IT AND BRING IT UP TO CODE, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT EXPENSE. AND FOR, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S STRIKES AS UNFAIR AND IT'S AN UNFAIR PROBLEM WE HAVE IN THE CITY THAT, AND I KNOW IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR CITY STAFF TO GO THROUGH AND INVENTORY EVERY SINGLE BUILDING IN THE CITY. I MEAN, THIS IS A HUGE CITY, BUT A PROPERTY OWNERS NEED TO HAVE, OR PROPERTY BUYERS NEED TO HAVE SOME EXPECTATION THAT IF THEY GO IN AND BUY A PROPERTY THAT'S NOT DESIGNATED HISTORIC, THAT THEY CAN DEMOLISH THE BUILDING AND MOVE FORWARD. NOW, I UNDERSTAND IF YOU BUY AN OLDER PROPERTY AND AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S ALWAYS A A RISK THERE. BUT THIS PROPERTY WAS JUST LIKE A, AS I SAID, IS USED AS A WAREHOUSE. IT IS NOT IN GOOD SHAPE. IT WOULD COST THEM SIGNIFICANT MONEY TO TRY TO RESTORE IT. SO WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT OUR REQUEST TO ALLOW DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING AND NOT DESIGNATE IT TO STORYING. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY. FIRST, WE'LL PLAY THE VOICEMAILS WE HAVE FOR THIS ITEM, AND THEN WE'LL CALL OUR IN-PERSON SPEAKERS UP. HELLO, MY NAME IS D COLE. I LIVE AT 1 0 5 RENO STREET IN GOVERNMENT HILL. I'M CALLING IN REGARDS TO CASE NUMBER 2 0 2 1 DASH [00:25:01] 4 9 8. I'M CALLING IN SUPPORT OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR 3 2 6 SINE STREET, WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM FOUR. WHAT A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING WITH ITS COMPLETE ART ARTISANAL STONE WORK, EXTERIOR, AND ARCHSTONE DETAILING OVER THE MAIN DOOR ENTRY. THE RECORD SHOWED THIS BUILDING ALREADY EXISTING IN A 1931 SAN ANTONIO CITY DIRECTORY. ITS EXCEPTIONAL. STONEWORK AND STYLE ARE COMPARABLE TO OTHER SIGNIFICANT W P A PROJECTS LIKE ALAMO STADIUM, THE HIPOLITO F GARCIA POST OFFICE AND FEDERAL BUILDING. AND EVEN OUR RIVERWALK 3, 2 6 SINE STREET SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND PROTECTED, NOT DEMOLISHED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST TO SAVE A PART OF THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF OUR AND MY GOVERNMENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KATHY VIC. THE ADDRESS IS 1 0 7 KING WILLIAMS STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 4. THIS IS IN REGARDS TO ITEM TEN THREE TWENTY SIX SEGUIN STREET, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2 0 2 1 DASH 4 9 8. THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO SUPPORTS THE FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE BUILDING AT 3 26 SASIN STREET. WE CONCUR THAT THE BUILDING MEETS CRITERION THREE DUE TO ITS ASSOCIATION WITH THE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT COAL GLAZER COMPANY AND FAMILY. AND CRITERION FIVE, DUE TO ITS DISTINCTIVE ARCHITECTURAL EXPRESSION. BY COMBINING THE IRREGULAR STONE FACING POPULAR AND RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY WITH A PRAIRIE STYLE BIN OF SECOND FLOOR WINDOWS, THIS BUILDING CREATES AN EXPRESSION UNIQUE ENOUGH THAT IT ALSO FULFILLS CRITERION 12. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE BUILDING MEETS CRITERION EIGHT, DUE TO ITS HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF LOCATION, DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND WORKMANSHIP LOCATED ON A RAILROAD. THE BUILDING WAS A SOURCE OF NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION FOR SAN ANTONIO, AND THUS, VISUALLY DESCRIBES THE TRANSITION FROM RAILROAD CULTURE TO AUTOMOBILE CULTURE. FOR THESE FOUR REASONS, WE URGE THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION TO ISSUE A FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE. THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS STEVE TI 1 0 5 RENO STREET. I'M CALLING ON AGENDA ITEM 4 3 26 SEGUIN STREET. ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT LOCATED IN THE OFFICIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS BUILDING HAS SIGNIFICANCE TO OUR GOVERNMENT HILL NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS STONE BUILDING FROM THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS WAS OWNED AND USED BY A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THAT PAVED MANY URBAN STREETS. COAL GLASER CAN BE FOUND ON MANY LIENS IN THE COUNTY RECORD. THIS SECTION OF SEINEN STREET IS AN HISTORIC ORIGINAL PART OF THE OLD SPANISH TRAIL, THE COAST TO COAST ROAD THAT WAS HEADQUARTERED IN SAN ANTONIO OVER 100 YEARS AGO. PLEASE RECOMMEND 3 26 FAIN FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION. THANK YOU. UM, SO FIRST IN PERSON, WE HAVE ROSE HILL. MS. HILL RECEIVED FOUR MINUTES TOTAL. UH, MAURICE STOUT HAS YIELDED HER TIME. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ROSE HILL, PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT HILL ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I'M HERE TODAY IN OPPOSITION OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION. BUT IN SUPPORT OF THE DEMOLITION, IF THERE'S ANYBODY THAT REALLY KNOWS ABOUT THIS PROPERTY, I WANNA SAY IT'S THE ALLIANCE. WE CAME IN BACK IN 2017 WHEN THAT WAS A RECYCLED FACILITY, ENVIRONMENTALLY UNSAFE. IT CREATED CHAOS, CREATED TRASH. IT CA CREATED RATS. IT CREATED PEOPLE TO GET SICK. WE WORKED WITH THE CITY FOR TWO YEARS TO SHUT THAT DOWN. ALONG WITH THE K GLAZER FAMILY. WE WORKED VERY HARD TO TRY TO BRING THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BACK UP TO WHERE IT'S AT NOW. UM, DURING THE TIME THAT WE BROUGHT THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND THE CITY IN, THERE WAS NEVER A MENTION OF THIS BEING A HISTORICAL BUILDING. IT'S NOT IN A HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT'S NOT A HISTORICAL BUILDING, AND IT'S NEVER BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD. I TALKED TO THEM, THEY HAVE NEVER HAD ANYTHING IN, UH, ENHANCED WITH THAT. UM, OUR MAIN CONCERN IN THE CITY IS THAT YOU WANNA HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY. UM, I THINK THAT WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING WITH A COMMUNITY, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, EVERYONE THINK ARE ON SINE, I WANNA SAY PROBABLY 60% OF THOSE NEIGHBORS ARE THE NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WHAT I CAN, THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CITY IS YOU WANNA KNOW WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING. HOW ARE THE NEIGHBORS, HOW ARE THE NEIGHBORS FEELING ABOUT, ABOUT THIS? WELL, THEY SUPPORT, WELL, THEY SUPPORTED, ACCORDING TO WHAT I TALKED TO MR, THE REPRESENTATIVE, I ASKED HIM TO GO AROUND AND TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS. AND THEIR FEEL WAS THEY WERE FOR, UM, THE DEMOLITION. WHY? BECAUSE THEY HAD A NEW NEIGHBOR COME IN, A NEW PERSON THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE AND, AND UPHELD HIS PROMISE TO KEEP THAT PROPERTY CLEAN FROM ENVIRONMENTAL, [00:30:01] UH, TO BE ABLE TO BRING UP THE THING FOR PAR. WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS THIS BUILDING IS, UH, NOT IN VERY GOOD SHAPE. THEY WANT MORE, UH, ROOM FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES TO, UH, HAVE FOR THE BATHROOMS. THEY DON'T HAVE A PROPER, UH, CONFERENCE ROOM OR, UH, SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN THEIR EMPLOYEES. THEY RIGHT NOW HAVE TWO PORTA-POTTIES AT THE VERY BACK OF THE BUILDING. AND, UH, THAT CREATES PROBLEMS WHEN THEY COME TO CLEAN UP THE, UH, UM, PICK UP THE PORTA-POTTIES. SO I'M SAYING THAT, UH, I'M ASKING YOU PLEASE TO GRANT THIS DEMOLITION, UH, AND NOT, UH, GRANT, THE, UH, LANDMARK DESIGNATION. I KNOW, UNDERSTAND THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE, ARE PUTTING THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION DO NOT LIVE WITHIN THE 200 FEET. THE PEOPLE THAT CALL TODAY DO NOT LIVE WITHIN, WITH OTHER, WITHIN THE 200 FEET. I'M ASKING YOU TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THOSE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE EVERY SINGLE DAY HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR VOICES HEARD. AND I'M HERE TODAY TO BACK THOSE VOICES UP. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT, UH, THOSE ARE THE, THE MAIN THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO EXPRESS TODAY IS I, I'M ALL FOR, UH, BEING IN I'M, I LIVE IN A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD IN GOVERNMENT HILL. UM, I BELIEVE IN REPRESENTING AND, UH, AND MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE. NOT TO KNOCK IT DOWN IF IT'S IN A HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THIS IS NOT IN A HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD. ALL THE BUSINESSES DOWN THERE ARE INDUSTRIAL. EVEN SOME OF THE HOME, THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WERE DE THEY'RE RESIDENTIAL. THE ALL THE HOUSES ARE IN FRONT ARE DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL. HOW THAT HAPPENED, WHO KNOWS, WAY BACK IN THE OLD DAYS, THEY PROBABLY, THEY JUST DIDN'T CHANGE THE CODE. BUT ALL THOSE HOMES RIGHT THERE, AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE HOMES, THEY'RE WITHIN THE FRONT PART OF, WITHIN THE 200 AREA, ARE IN SUPPORT OF DEMOLITION. AND THEY'RE AGAINST THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION BECAUSE THEY GOT A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND A GOOD PERSON THAT'S WANTING TO TAKE CARE OF THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. WE'RE LOOKING FOR PARTNERSHIPS. PEOPLE THAT ARE, WE HAVE BUSINESSES SOMETIMES THAT COME IN THAT ARE VERY BAD PARTNERS WITH THE COMMUNITY. AND IN THIS CASE, THEY HAVE, HAVE, HAVE UPHELD THEIR, UM, THEIR COMMITMENT AND THEY HAVE UPHELD THEIR PROMISES TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. SO I'M ASKING YOU, PLEASE DO NOT, UH, GRANT THEM THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION. I THINK THE OWNER IN THIS CASE, THE OWNER OR THE PERSON THAT PUT IN THE APPLICATION, SHOULD HAVE COME TO THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S WHAT THE CITY SAYS. COME TO THE COMMUNITY, TALK TO THE COMMUNITY. IF THE COMMUNITY WANTS IT, THEN GO FOR IT. IF THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT IT, DON'T GO FOR IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND MARLENE HAWKINS, DO YOU HAVE A WAY OF SHOWING THIS? UH, DON'T. OKAY. A LOT OF WHAT YOU'VE JUST BEEN TOLD. SO PEOPLE, CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF? PARDON? CAN YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF INTO THE RECORD? PARDON YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. OKAY. MARLENE HAWKINS, 6 0 1 EAST CARSON. I'M PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, WHICH EVERYBODY THAT LIVES IN GOVERNMENT HILL IS A MEMBER. BECAUSE WE'RE LIKE BEACON HILL, WE TAKE IN EVERYBODY WITHOUT DUES. THIS ORGANIZATION HAS ABOUT EIGHT MEMBERS. THEY DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE ORGANIZATION, BUT I DON'T WANNA SPEND TIME ON THAT. MR. UH, THE, THE ATTORNEY WAS WRONG. HE SAID THAT, UH, THAT, UH, K GLAZER NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO. THE, HIS, THE, HIS, UH, ROBERT KLA HAD NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO AFTER WORLD WAR II. IT SAYS POST WORLD WAR II, UH, K GLAZER RETURNED TO SAN ANTONIO AND WAS PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY BUSINESS, UH, UH, NOW RECOGNIZED AS K GLAZER MCKINNON. THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME CONSTRUCTION WHILE ALSO CONTINUING TO SERVE IN THE ARMY RESERVES. SO THAT WAS A WRONG STATEMENT YOU WERE GIVEN AMONG MANY OTHERS. UH, THIS WAS A WELL DOCUMENTED, UH, BIO. YOU CAN SEE ALL THE REFERENCES HERE THAT WERE USED IN IT. SO THIS BUILDING ITSELF, AND I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH WITH EVERYTHING, WITH ONLY TWO MINUTES. I'M THE ONE WHO WROTE THE SIGNIFICANCE. IF YOU'LL GIMME MORE TIME, IT'LL HELP. UM, THE BUILDING ITSELF IS HISTORIC, AND IT DOES MEET THOSE CRITERIA. AND, UH, DIGNITY, HISTORIC AND, AND CONSERVATION. AND EVEN YOU GENTLEMEN, SOME OF YOU LADIES OR GENTLEMEN HERE, ADDED CRITERIA THAT YOU THOUGHT MADE IT HISTORIC. SO I, THAT WAS, THAT WAS A GREAT THING. SHOWING Y'ALL RECOGNIZE THE HISTORIC NATURE. THE PERSON THAT THAT IS, WE CALL THE, THE IMPORTANT PERSON THERE. THE ONE THAT WAS WELL KNOWN WAS, UH, WAS ROBERT WESS, WESLEY K GLAZER. HE GRADUATED FROM A AND M, ANY OF YOU AN AGGIES. HE JOINED THE ARMY RESERVES. HE GOT CALLED BY THE P UH, PRESIDENT, MR. CHAIR. [00:35:02] UM, UH, I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER TWO MINUTES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. HE, UH, HE WAS CALLED UP FOR THE WORLD WAR II, AND HE WAS AN ENGINEER. SO HE SERVED IN THAT CAPACITY AND IN COMMUNICATIONS, AND HE HELPED DESIGN, ACCORDING TO THE REFERENCES HERE, HE HELPED DESIGN THE PENTAGON. THAT'S IMPORTANT. AFTER THAT, HE CAME BACK TO SAN ANTONIO AND WAS PRESIDENT OF THE COAL GLAZER COMPANY. AND THEN HE GOT CALLED UP FOR THE KOREAN WAR AND THEN THE VIETNAM WAR, UH, AND IN THE VIETNAM WAR. AND WHEN HE, AT THE END OF THE VIETNAM WAR, HE BECAME THE COM COMMANDER OF THE ARMY OF THE TEXAS FOURTH ARMY. AND THEN AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS, HE RETIRED, STAYED HERE IN SAN ANTONIO. HE IS BURIED AT THE NATIONAL CEMETERY HERE. HE HAD MANY, MANY AWARDS IN HIS TIME, WHICH WE COULD SHOW THESE, UH, FROM, EVEN FROM OTHER NATIONS FOR THE GREAT WORK THAT HE DID. I THINK THAT THIS MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED TO DESIGNATE THIS AS A LANDMARK. AND I DON'T THINK IT TAKES ALL THE APPROVAL OF THE NEIGHBORS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND IT WILL NOT HURT THEM ANYWAY. IN FACT, IT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN BE PROUD OF. PLEASE DESIGNATE IT AS A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WE CAN HAVE THE OWNER BACK TO THE PODIUM AT THIS TIME. GO AHEAD AND REINTRODUCE YOURSELF, AND IF YOU HAVE, UH, ANY REBUTTAL ITEMS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO DISCUSS. UH, PATRICK CHRISTENSEN, THREE 10 SOUTH ST. MARY'S, SUITE 2,700. UM, NO MAJOR REBUTTAL COMMISSIONERS. YOU KIND OF HEARD MY PRESENTATION. NOW, AS FAR AS THE COAL GLAZER GO, NONE OF US ARE COAL GLAZER. THEY HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THIS BUILDING AT ALL, BUT THEY STILL HAVE OPERATED A REAL ESTATE BUSINESS HERE. SO WE REACHED OUT TO THEM. I'M GONNA HAVE TO TRUST WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THEIR FAMILY HISTORY. AND THEY SAID THAT HE DID NOT HAVE AN INVOLVEMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. UM, EVEN IF HE DID HAVE INVOLVEMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, I DON'T THINK HIS MILITARY SERVICE AND MAYBE WORKING AT A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AFFECTS THE HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT OF THIS BUILDING. BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WITH ME, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I OPEN IT UP TO THE, UH, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR EITHER THE STAFF OR FOR THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. MR. CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. UM, CAN YOU PULL UP SLIDE FOUR OF THE PRESENTATION? SO, UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE. THIS IS THE NEXT STEP, WHICH IS THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION. THAT'S CORRECT. WE'RE ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATION BASED ON CITY COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION. IF THIS DOESN'T PASS LANDMARK DESIGNATION, IS IT STILL WHAT HAPPENS TO THE FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE? IT'S REALLY TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. SO UNDER STATE LAW, WE WOULD NEED NINE VOTES BY THIS COMMISSION TODAY IN ORDER TO APPROVE THE DESIGNATION. UM, WITHOUT, WITHOUT THAT APPROVAL, THEN THERE'S NO DESIGNATION CASE ANYMORE. BUT WE STILL HAVE THE FINDING OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE, WHICH IS INSIGNIFICANT . RIGHT. BUT THE, THE FINDING ALONE DOES NOT DIRECT STAFF WHAT TO DO WITH A DEMOLITION PERMIT. ONLY A DESIGNATION, UH, ON THE PROPERTY WOULD INFORM THAT PROCESS. SO THE, UH, OWNER WOULD BE ABLE TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING. CORRECT. OH. UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, TO DISCUSS THESE, WE ALREADY AS A COMMISSION HAD A MAJORITY DECIDING THAT, UM, FIVE OF THESE WERE THE CRITERIA THAT WE WERE, UM, KIND OF ATTACHING TO THIS PROPERTY. UM, IF EVEN IF WE CONSIDERED THE FAMILY NOT HAVING ANY TIES ANYMORE AND REMOVE ONE, OR MAYBE THAT THE REAL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REAL BUSINESS, THAT'S ANOTHER ONE. BUT WE STILL HAVE THREE CRITERIA LEFT ON THE TABLE. JUST WANTED TO SEE IF WE CAN DISCUSS THAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE COMMENT? MR. CHAIR? YOU KNOW, I, THESE ARE ALWAYS VERY DIFFICULT, UM, THINGS TO, TO LOOK AT WHEN, WHEN LOOKING AT, UM, THE, UM, THE RULE, RIGHT? SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE, THE FIRST LINE OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THIS THREE FIVE DASH 6 0 6, IT SAYS, REQUEST FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION MAY ONLY BE MADE BY OR WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND SO OFTEN PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN WHAT WOULD BE THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO GO AND DESIGN AND, AND DREAM AND BUILD THEIR FUTURES ARE HIT WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THESE AFTERTHOUGHT, [00:40:02] UH, OPPORTUNITIES TO STOP A PROJECT. SO, SO WE HAVE A, A COMMUNITY THAT IS ACTIVELY PURSUING REMEDY WITH RESPECT TO, UM, THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THIS BUILDING OVER THE COURSE OF, LET'S SAY, A DECADE. AND THERE ARE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND, AND TELEVISION, UH, COVERAGE THAT SHOWS AN ENGAGED COMMUNITY. NOW, THERE'S ANOTHER COMMUNITY THAT IS ONLY ENGAGED WHEN THERE'S THE THREAT OF A DEMOLITION, RIGHT? BUT I, I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS REQUEST FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION MAY ONLY BE MADE BY OR WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO BE THE, THE KEY TO WHAT FOLLOWS IN THIS, UM, UH, THIS SECTION OF THE CODE, WHICH I, WHICH I, I WOULD ASK THE, YOU KNOW, THE BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OR THE REDEVELOPMENT, CONSTANT RETHINKING OF THE U D C THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU PROBABLY SHOULD GET INVOLVED IN, BECAUSE THERE ARE THESE LITTLE INCONSISTENCIES THAT I THINK AFFECT BOTH SIDES NEGATIVELY. AND, AND IN THIS CASE, WE SEE THIS HAPPENING A LOT. AND, AND THE THING THAT BRINGS IT TO SUCH AN IMPORTANT, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, POINT FOR ME TO, TO MAKE UP IS THAT I ALWAYS HAVE IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD, A A HISTORIC, UM, A HOUSE THAT WAS SIGNIFICANT OWNED BY A VERY SIGNIFICANT INDIVIDUAL IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND WE VOTED TO TEAR IT DOWN. IT WAS THE ALBERT PENA HOUSE. SO THE, THE, THE, THE CONTRADICTIONS, I THINK FEED, UH, UH, UH, THE CONFUSION, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO AN OWNER THAT'S READY TO DEVELOP. AND, UM, UM, UH, WITH RESPECT TO, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CONFLICTING HISTORIES, I GUESS THAT'S PART OF THE, PART OF THE PROBLEM, RIGHT? WHEN YOU SET A HISTORIC BOUNDARY, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE LEFT SOMETHING OUT OF THAT BOUNDARY. AND, UM, BUT, BUT I DO THINK I JUST, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THAT, THAT YOU ARE HERE, I THINK IT'S WELL WORTH Y'ALL MAKING AN EFFORT TO GET INVOLVED IN THE PROCESSES OF THE U D C. AND IF YOU SEE SOMETHING IN HERE THAT SEEMS TO BE A LOOP THAT BENEFITS SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, CLEARLY THE BEST EXAMPLES OF PRESERVATION IN SAN ANTONIO ARE THOSE EXAMPLES THAT ARE LED BY AN OWNER WHO WANTS TO PRESERVE, OR A COMMUNITY WHO'S GOING TO ASK O H P TO, TO, TO USE THE IMMINENT DOMAIN POWER THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE SOMETHING AND PURCHASE IT AND FIX IT. BUT AT SOME LEVEL, I THINK WE HAVE TO STRETCH SOME BALANCE. I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION OF BOTH, UH, UH, UH, UH, CORNERS OF THE COMMUNITY. BUT, UH, UM, I, I, UH, I WOULDN'T BE SUPPORTING A, A, A DESIGNATION FOR, UM, LANDMARK STATUS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS COME? YEAH, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, ECHO THOSE COMMENTS. I, THESE CASES ARE ALWAYS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND. I, IT'S ONE THING, THE CONVERSATION WOULD BE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FOR ME IF THE APPLICANT WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, EVEN AT THAT, IF THE APPLICANT WAS A PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS INSTANCE, I STILL DON'T SEE THE SIGNIFICANCE THERE, UM, AS IT IS. SO, I, I, I'M JUST SHARING, UH, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ'S SAME SENTIMENTS. THANK YOU. UH, MR. CHAIRMAN? CHAIRMAN? YES. COMMISSIONER FISH? YEAH. THIS IS JEFFREY FETZER. OH, SORRY. UM, I'M JOINING Y'ALL VIRTUALLY TODAY. COMMISSIONER FETZER, CAN YOU TURN ON YOUR CAMERA, PLEASE? I BELIEVE MY CAMERA IS ON. I'M, MY VOICE IS COMING THROUGH MY PHONE AND MY PICTURE'S ON, SO I'M ON TWICE. YEAH, I CAN DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD. YEAH. YES. UM, I THINK THE COMMUNITY, UH, BOTH PROS AND CONS FOR COMING OUT AND, AND VOICING THEIR OPINIONS AND CONCERNS, UM, I WILL, IF IT COMES TO THAT, I WILL BE SUPPORTING A LANDMARK DESIGNATION BASED ON CRITERIA, UH, FIVE, EIGHT, AND 12 AT LEAST. UH, IF THERE IS SOME, UM, MISREPRESENT OR JUST OR, UH, CONFUSION ABOUT, UH, THE SIGNIFICANT PERSON INVOLVED, I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE STILL, UH, THERE'S STILL ADEQUATE CRITERIA TO DESIGNATE [00:45:01] THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SWEENEY. CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER UNE. YES. UH, ISN'T OUR STANDARD POLICY THAT IF WE RECEIVE A REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION, WE ALSO NEED A PLAN SHOWING HOW THE PROPERTY WILL BE REDEVELOPED. SO THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALREADY DESIGNATED. AND SO THE QUESTION TODAY IS REGARDING THE DESIGNATION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MONICA, VICE CHAIR. UM, I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. UM, CAN STAFF, OR I NEED CLARIFICATION ON ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, PERSON OR PERSONS OR EVENTS. THERE WAS A MENTION OF THE O SS T EVENT AS WELL AS THE COLE GLAZER FAMILY. ARE WE CONSIDERING, WOULD BOTH OF THOSE ENTITIES FALL WITHIN CRITERIA THREE? MOVING THE THING, OH, MOVING THE VIDEO REAL QUICK SO YOU GUYS CAN READ IT. UM, SO IDENTIFICATION WITH A PERSON OR PERSON WHO SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNITY, COUNTY, STATE, OR NATION. UM, I THINK, LET ME LOOK IN THE ORIGINAL, I CAN'T HEAR, BE SURE THAT YOU TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE, PLEASE. YEAH, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. AND WHERE WOULD THE O S T, UM, FALL, IN WHAT CATEGORY WOULD THEY FALL IN? SO IN THE, THE WRECK THAT WAS CONSIDERED AT THE FIRST HEARING, THAT FALLS UNDER CRITERION TWO, WHICH IS ITS LOCATION IS A SITE OF SIGNIFICANT LOCAL COUNTY, STATE OR NATIONAL EVENT. BUT, UM, THE, THE APPLICANT DIDN'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION, AND STAFF WASN'T ABLE TO CORROBORATE EITHER. GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, I WILL SAY THAT, UM, I DO FEEL LIKE THIS, UM, I DO BELIEVE FROM MY INTERPRETING, THESE CRITERIA, 3, 5, 6, AND ESPECIALLY 12, I THINK, APPLY TO THIS CASE. UM, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A DOUBT THAT THE COAL GLAZER FAMILY, WHETHER IT'S ONE INDIVIDUAL OR THE MANY GENERATIONS THAT OPERATED THE BUSINESS, WAS A MAJOR CIVIL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY HERE IN SAN ANTONIO FOR DECADES, THAT, UM, BUILT MANY OF THE ROADS THAT WE USE ON A DAILY BASIS. SO I THINK NUMBER THREE IS A, UM, PRETTY SOUND CRITERIA. UM, I DO FIND THIS ARCHITECTURAL SPEAKING, UM, THE STRUCTURE REALLY INTERESTING, UNIQUE FOR 1930S CONSTRUCTION USE, UM, OCCURRING IN A ALMOST RESIDENTIAL FORM, BUT IT IS CLEARLY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USE. UH, IT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY SEE AT THIS TIME, PERIOD, POURED CONCRETES OR CONCRETE BLOCK, INSULATED BLOCK. SO FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL STANDPOINT, UM, I THINK IT IS REALLY A UNIQUE EXAMPLE OF UTILITARIAN STRUCTURE. SO NUMBER SIX IS VERY STRONG, AND FOR A CONSTRUCTION OFFICE WAREHOUSE, NUMBER 12, I THINK THERE'S SOME VERY, VERY STRONG CRITERIA ON THIS. UM, I GUESS MY QUESTION ALSO TO THE APPLICANT, DO YOU HAVE INTERIOR PHOTOS? IT'S HARD TO, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE WHAT THE CONDITION MIGHT BE LIKE ON THE INTERIOR IN REGARDS TO RENOVATION POSSIBILITIES. YEAH. BUT REAL QUICK, I'M NOT THE APPLICANT. I'M THE OWNER. UM, UNDERSTAND? YES. UH, NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY PICTURES OF THE INSIDE. I HAVE BEEN INSIDE, I MEAN, THE DOWNSTAIRS WAS USED FOR CAR STORAGE. THE PREVIOUS OWNER, LES HARGIS, HAD A LOT OF HISTORIC CAR, AT LEAST OLD ANTIQUE CARS. THE UPSTAIRS HAS JUST BEEN USED FOR BOXES STORAGE. IT'S JUST A LARGE SPACE, SO IT'S CLEARLY DELINEATED AS UTILITARIAN WAREHOUSE ON THE BOTTOM OFFICE, OTHER TYPE OF OFFICE. CLEARLY IT WAS SOME TYPE OF OFFICE ON THE TOP FLOOR. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MR. CHAIR? THIS IS COMMISSIONER GIBBS. IF NOT, UM, MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO, WE HAD COMMISSIONER, I THINK MR. GIBBS IS GONNA ASK, UH, MS. GIBBS. YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. UM, I, I AGREE WITH, UH, SOME OF MY LOCAL COMMISSIONERS THAT THIS, THIS CASE ARE ALWAYS, UM, DIFFICULT. UM, I, AND YOU KNOW, WHEN WE APPROVED THE, UM, HISTORICAL, I MEAN FINDING HISTORICAL HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE, UM, I HAD A FEELING THAT THIS WAS GONNA COME BACK. AND WITH THE [00:50:01] CITY LOOKING AT THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION, I, I, I AM IN AGREEMENT, UM, OF AT LEAST THREE OF THE CRITERION RIGHT NOW. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, FINDING, UM, THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THIS, FOR LEASE CRITERION THREE, FIVE, AND 12, I AM DEFINITELY IN AGREEMENT WITH, SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND, UM, I CONCUR WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WHO FIND THIS TO BE A DIFFICULT CASE. THESE ARE ALWAYS DIFFICULT WHEN, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER ISN'T IN FAVOR OF LANDMARK DESIGNATION. UM, I JUST WOULD REMIND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT THE, THE SAME, UH, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION THAT WAS, UH, CITED EARLIER, THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE GOES ON TO GIVE PROVISIONS FOR WHEN A, A PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT IN AGREEMENT FOR THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION. SO THIS IS, UH, NOT SOME KIND OF SENSE OF, OF, OF TAKING. UM, THERE IS WELL-ESTABLISHED, UH, CASE LAW, UM, THAT, UH, GIVES THIS, UH, YOU KNOW, LEGAL BASIS THAT WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE SUPREME COURT. UM, IT IS A DESIGNATION DOES NOT, IN THIS CASE, IN MY MIND, UH, LIMIT THE OWNER'S CAPACITY TO, TO MAKE A REASONABLE, UH, ECONOMIC, UH, RETURN ON THIS PROPERTY. UM, I ALSO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS BY, UH, BOTH ENDS OF THE, UH, THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, THOSE OPPOSED, AND THOSE, UH, FOR THE DESIGNATION. AND, UH, PARTICULARLY WANT TO EXTEND MY APPRECIATION TO THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER FOR BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND, AND, AND BEING RESPONSIBLE. AND, UM, THIS IS IN, IN NO WAY, I THINK SHOULD BE SEEN AS A PUNITIVE PROCESS, BUT ONE IN WHICH, UH, MAYBE A LARGER COMMUNITY VOICE COMES, UH, TO BEAR TO WHEN SOMETHING OF SIGNIFICANCE DOES APPEAR TO BE THREATENED. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, FINAL COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS? I, I HAVE GOT A QUESTION, MR. CHAIR, THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK, UH, STAFF BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS TO TELL A PERSON THAT, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, UH, ASSUMES THAT THEY HAVE, UH, RIGHTS WITH THEIR PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU TAKE A DEEP BREATH, THIS, THIS WON'T HURT. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE'S NOBODY WHO'S GONNA GET HURT, BUT THE PERSON WHO HAS SOME AMBITION, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO JUDGE WHETHER THAT AMBITION IS ACTUALLY A, A GREATER CONTRIBUTION TO, UH, THE URBAN LANDSCAPE, UH, IN ANY AND ALL CASES. UH, BUT I, I, I WANNA ASK STA UM, UH, COREY, UM, BECAUSE I, I'M, I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE QUITE A BIT OF EXPERIENCE, UM, WHY DOES THE, YOU KNOW, THE, FROM YOUR UNDERSTANDING, IT, IT APPEARS THAT THE, THAT THE FIRST SENTENCE MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. IT MIS VERY MISLEADING BECAUSE THE REST OF IT SEEMS TO BE THE WAY THAT THE RULE IS APPLIED, THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO VALIDITY TO THE STATEMENT THAT REQUESTS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION MAY ONLY BE MADE BY OR WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO TRUTH TO THAT, RIGHT? YOU'RE GONNA, IF YOU'RE, IF WE'RE GONNA SAY ACCEPT THAT, WHY DON'T WE JUST BEGIN THERE? WHY DO WE MISLEAD THE PUBLIC IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY'RE PURCHASING PROPERTIES AND MAINTAINING THEM, AND THEN ONE DAY THEY GET TO A POINT WHERE THEY, THEY READ THE THING, MAYBE THEY DIDN'T READ ENOUGH OF IT. SO TWO THINGS. UM, THE FIRST, YOU CAN REPLACE THE WORD LANDMARK DESIGNATION WITH ANY ZONING REQUEST. THAT IS HOW ZONING LAW WORKS, IS ONLY A PROPERTY OWNER CAN MAKE THE REQUEST, OR CITY COUNCIL CAN MAKE THE REQUEST. AND SO IT IS VERY MUCH A IF OR PROCESS. AND SO WE'RE IN THE OR SIDE OF THINGS. UM, THE OTHER THING IS THAT, UM, THAT LANGUAGE IS VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH STATE LAW. AND SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS LOOKED AT MOST RECENTLY AT REALLY THE PAST TWO STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS. AND SO OUR PROCESS THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH STATE LAW. AND THEN THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WOULD STILL RE RETAIN SOME AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO AN AFTER DECISION, RIGHT? LIKE IF COUNCIL OR IF A H D R C MAKES A DECISION THAT THE APPLICANT CAN STILL GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, NO, BECAUSE THIS IS A, A ZONING CASE TECHNICALLY. AND SO, UH, APPEALS ARE APPEALS OF A CITY DECISION. AND DECISIONS REGARDING ZONING ARE NOT CITY OFFICIAL DECISIONS. CITY MANAGER CAN MAKE THE CHANGE, AND THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. WE ARE, LET'S LOOK AT THE PURVIEW. OUR PURVIEW IS THE PROPERTY THE OWNER CAN, THEN WE'VE HAD A CASE WHERE WE FOUND HISTORIC [00:55:01] SIGNIFICANCE, CITY COUNTS, UH, THERE'S, WHAT DO YOU CALL THE WALSH? THEY CAN REVERT OUR DECISION, RIGHT? THE CITY MANAGER IS THE ONLY PERSON THAT CAN REVERT THAT DECISION, RIGHT? I DON'T WANNA COMPLETE THE TWO THINGS. SO A A C O A RE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THIS BODY REGARDING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS IS NOT THE SAME AS A RECOMMENDATION FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, RIGHT? RIGHT. BUT ONCE IT GOES TO, IT, IT, SO THIS DOESN'T GO TO ZONING ANYMORE. IT GOES STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL. IT NEVER GOES TO ZONING UNDER THE NEW STATE LAW, UNDER THE NEW, OKAY. THEN WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE OR NINE VOTES HERE AT THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO PROCEED FORWARD IN THE DESIGNATION PROCESS OR THE ZONING PROCESS. SO WITHOUT THE NINE VOTES, IT DOES NOT GO ANY FURTHER IN THE PROCESS. OKAY. JAMES, ONE, ONE OTHER QUESTION. THE, THE THRESHOLD REQUIRED FOR AN APPLICANT THAT IS NOT THE OWNER AND THAT IS NOT THE OFFICE OF PRESERVATION, IS THE THRESHOLD SET BY STATE LAW OR DOES THE MUNICIPALITY PICK THE THRESHOLD? SO WE ARE, BY THRESHOLD YOU MEAN THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA? THE, THE L G B CRITER, THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA WITH RESPECT TO A NON-OWNER AND A NON MUNICIPAL ENTITY. SO IT'S THE SAME CRITERIA THAT ARE APPLIED TO ANY DESIGNATION. SO, UM, ALL OF THOSE CASES COME HERE FIRST. THIS IS THE FIRST STOP FOR A OF THE SOURCE SIGNIFICANCE. AND THOSE SAME ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA ARE APPLIED TO A PROPERTY WHEN MAKING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. SO, SO THEN IT'S REGARDLESS OF WHO SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION. SO ONE, ONE LAST LITTLE PIECE. SO THEN IT'S, IT WOULD BE PROPER TO SAY THAT, THAT A NON-OWNER ENJOYS EQUAL RIGHTS AS AN OWNER? NO. WITH RESPECT TO A APPLYING FOR CITY CONSIDERATION, ANYBODY CAN COME AND TAKE THAT FIRST STEP TO GET A FINDING OF THE SOURCE SIGNIFICANCE, OR AT LEAST A RECOMMENDATION FROM THIS BODY CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE SITE. THAT DECISION DOES NOT START THE DESIGNATION PROCESS. ONLY THE OWNER CAN DO THAT, OR ONLY CITY COUNCIL CAN DO THAT. IN THIS CASE, IT WENT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR RESOLUTION, IT WAS APPROVED. AND SO CITY COUNCIL IS TECHNICALLY THE APPLICANT FOR THIS DESIGNATION CASE. IF THE OWNER WAS IN SUPPORT, IT WOULD NOT GO TO CITY COUNCIL FIRST. IT WOULD JUST GO FORWARD LIKE A NORMAL ZONING REQUEST. VERY INTERESTING. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. YEAH, SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT AS, UH, THIS COMMISSION CONSIDERS THIS CASE IS THAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IS THIS PROPERTY NOT THE VALIDITY OF THE U D C AND OR THE STATE LAWS THAT, THAT, UH, THAT IT IS, UH, STRIVING TO COMPLY WITH. SO JUST PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND IN YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO, I KIND OF WANTED TO MAYBE NARROW IT DOWN TO WHICH CRITERIA SHOULD BE THAT WE COULD KIND OF ALL AGREE ON, OR I THINK, I FEEL LIKE THE MAJORITY OF THIS COMMISSION IS NOW, UM, AT LEAST THREE OF THEM ARE IN AGREEMENT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF MORE SHOULD BE ADDED. I'M A LITTLE BIT, UM, AND I MEAN, IF THERE'S NO PROOF OF THE CO GLACIER FAMILY AND THE OWNER HAS, OR THE OWNER'S APP, UH, REPRESENTATIVE HAS DONE AN EFFORT TO, I, I DON'T THINK CRITERIA THREE APPLIES ANYMORE. WHICH DOESN'T MEAN THAT, I MEAN, THE OTHER CRITERIA DO APPLY, BUT I THINK THERE'S BEEN AN EFFORT WITH THE CONTACT TO THE FAMILY. THIS IS, UH, FETZER, AGAIN, BASED ON WHAT COMMISSIONER SAVINO HAD MENTIONED, THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY, UM, GENERAL COLD GLASER, BUT THE COLD GLASER FAMILY HAS BEEN A PROMINENT, UH, FAMILY IN THE COMMUNITY AND HAS SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED, CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAN ANTONIO. SO, UM, THE FAMILY ITSELF, WHETHER, UH, THE GENERAL WAS PART OF THAT OR NOT, I THINK THE COLD GLASER FAMILY IS SIGNIFICANT. SO I, I COULD SEE CA UH, NUMBER THREE, APPLYING VICE CHAIR. UM, I DO WANNA ADD THAT, UM, UM, ONCE I SAW THIS ON THE, UM, ON THE AGENDA, I ALWAYS DO MY HOMEWORK, GO DRIVING AROUND THE SITE. UM, I KNOW IT'S ON A VERY LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S RELATIVELY MODEST BUILDING. I ALSO DO MY DEEDED RESEARCHES, AND, UM, THAT'S WHERE I FOUND THE COAL GLACIER COMPANY BEING INVOLVED IN SO MANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR DECADES. AND I WAS SHOCKED. I WAS , I WAS HONESTLY SURPRISED, BUT THAT'S WHAT I TEND TO DO ON ALL OF THE, UH, UM, LANDMARK CASES AND PEOPLE LOOKING FOR DESIGNATIONS. I TRY TO DIG DEEPER IN PLACES WHERE MOST PEOPLE DON'T DIG. BUT, UM, UH, I THINK NUMBER THREE IS PRETTY STRONG WHEN TAKING [01:00:01] THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THE OTHER THOUGHT I HAD IS, AGAIN, THERE'S SO MUCH MORE WE MAY, MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS BUILDING, AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE IF IT GOES DOWN VERY QUICKLY, WE RUN THE OPPORTUNITY OF NOT OF, YOU KNOW, FINDING SOMETHING ELSE OUT AND MORE INFORMATION AND FINDING THAT IT WAS PROBABLY SOMETHING, UM, MORE IMPORTANT THAN ITS ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND INTEGRITY. UM, SO THIS IS WHY THESE CASES ARE IMPORTANT TO ME. ONCE IT'S GONE, IT'S GONE. THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT AND THANK YOU, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER FOR ALSO HIGHLIGHTING THAT IT'S EVEN IF A, THE, UH, THE JOURNAL WAS NOT ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN, IN THE BUSINESS, AND WE, WE HAVE MAYBE EVIDENCE, UH, TO REFUTE THAT, THAT THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT LEGACY, UH, FAMILY BUSINESS AND, UH, THEY MADE A GREAT CONTRIBUTION TO OUR COMMUNITY. I THINK ALSO, UH, AS I LOOK AT THIS AND EVALUATE, I, I THINK OF THE BUILDING TYPOLOGY. UM, AS, UH, COMMISSIONER SNO ALREADY MENTIONED THAT THIS IS VERY UNUSUAL, UH, IN THAT IT WAS RENDERED IN THIS MATERIAL, UH, PALETTE AND STYLE. AND, UM, EVEN THOSE KIND OF LOWLY WAREHOUSES, THEY'RE THE STRUCTURAL CLAY TILE AND CONCRETE FRAME AND WHAT HAVE YOU, THEY ARE QUICKLY VANISHING IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, HISTORIC PRESERVATION ISN'T JUST TO, UM, TO PRESERVE THE, UH, THE MATERIAL CULTURE OF THE ELITE SOCIETY OR THE MOST BEAUTIFUL ELEMENTS, BUT ALSO THE LOWLY AND THE UTILITARIAN. AND, UM, I MENTIONED THAT AT THE TIME WE CONSIDERED THE, UH, THE FINDINGS OF, UH, HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE THAT, UH, FELT LIKE THIS WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF A TYPE THAT, UH, IS QUICKLY VANISHING AND BEING REPLACED WITH METAL BUILDINGS OF, OF LITTLE, UM, CHARACTER. I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, UH, A NUMBER OF THE, UH, THE, UH, CATEGORIES OF SIGNIFICANCE. I, I PERSONALLY CONCUR WITH THE, UH, THE, UH, KING WILLIAM, UM, ASSOCIATIONS, YOU KNOW, FOUR ITEMS THAT THEY HAD MENTIONED IN THEIR, UH, CALL AS BEING, UM, REASONS FOR ELIGIBILITY. AND I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED, UH, SEVERAL, THE OTHERS HERE. ANYONE WANT TO ADVOCATE FOR ANY OF THESE, UH, ITEMS NOT BEING CONSIDERED? UM, CAN I ASK ABOUT CRITERIA NUMBER SIX? I UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS PROBABLY USED IN CONNECTION TO THE RAILROAD BUSINESS. IS THAT WHY IT'S THERE? LET ME CONSULT THE PREVIOUS WRECK, MR. CHAIR. UM, AT, AT SOME POINT, UH, WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN THAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE SAYS H D R C FOUND THOSE FOUR ITEMS THERE, FIVE ITEMS 3, 5, 6, AND EIGHT AND 12. THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT THE APPLICANT'S, UH, TERMS, THEY'RE THE COMMISSION'S TERMS, I BELIEVE, AND THE, UM, THEY'RE KIND OF BROKERING OF WHICH ONE'S MORE IMPORTANT OR WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME, I THINK IT'S TORTUROUS AND IT SHOULD BE TORTUROUS TO THE, TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I, I FIND I'M VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE COMMENTS CONSTANTLY REALLY BEING COMMENTS OF OPINION THAT NEVER REALLY INCLUDE THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE REALLY COMPLICATED, THE REALLY DIFFICULT CONVERSATION IS, IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S SOMEBODY SITTING THERE THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS PROPERTY BELONGS TO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT PART THAT PLAYS, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE EVER PRESENT. SO IF, IF THE H D R C, WHOEVER THE PARTIES WOULD BE THAT CREATED 3, 5, 6, 8, AND 12, I'M IMAGINING USE THEIR EDUCATIONS OR THEIR EXPERIENCE TO SAY THAT AT THE TIME THAT THEY PROPOSED THESE FIVE I ITEMS HERE, THAT THEY MEANT IT AND IF THEY MEANT IT NEGOTIATING THEM RIGHT NOW TO, TO, TO ME IS MR. VI, MR I'M TRYING TO DO A MOTION, AND IN THE MOTION WE HAVE TO MENTION ELIGIBILITY CRITICALIZED. WELL, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALL THERE. 3, 5, 6, 8, AND 12 ARE THERE. IF YOU'RE, IF, IF THOSE ARE THE COMMENTS THAT THE LAST MEETING WE'RE COMMITTED TO, THEY'RE ON THE SCREEN, SOMEBODY MADE RECORD OF 'EM AND WROTE 'EM, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. I THINK THAT THEY ARE, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINTABLE. AND, UM, AND I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THAT. THAT WAS THE INHERENT IN THE PREVIOUS MOTION FOR THE FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. AND, AND WHILE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT HERE DEBATING THEM, WE ARE JUST MERELY TRYING TO SEE HOW WE CAN CRAFT A MOTION [01:05:01] THAT THAT MAY INCORPORATE THEM. THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR. UH, COULD STAFF CLARIFY? THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION IS BECAUSE THERE WAS A COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT THIS MEETING TODAY SAYING THAT THEY HAD FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT, THAT THIS BUILDING HAD TO DO ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE RAILROAD BUSINESS. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IF THAT WAS IT. SORRY, COREY AND I ARE LOOKING AT EACH OTHER TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ANSWERING THE RIGHT THING. UM, SO AT THE INITIAL H D R C HEARING FOR THIS, WHICH WAS REGARDING THE, UM, REQUEST FOR REVIEW SUBMITTED BY, UM, GOVERNMENT HILL, UM, THEY SUGGESTED THE APPLICANT SUGGESTED THAT IT MET CRITERIA 1, 2, 3, AND FIVE. UM, STAFF ONLY FOUND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THREE AND FIVE, AND THEN H D R C SUGGESTED SIX, EIGHT, AND 12. NOBODY CAN REMEMBER WHY WE ADDED SIX, EIGHT, AND 12. I MEAN, WE HAVE A LOT OF CASES, SO, WELL, AS, AS I HAD MENTIONED, UM, ITEM SIX FOR ME IS VALID BECAUSE OF THE UTILITARIAN STRUCTURE, UH, NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE ASSOCIATION WITH THE, WITH THE RAILROAD. OKAY, THANK YOU. IT WAS JUST BECAUSE YOU ALSO MENTIONED ABOUT THE KING WILLIAM AND THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY, THEY DON'T NOT MENTION SIX, THEY MENTIONED 3, 5, 8, AND 12. RIGHT. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WOULD, I I WOULD INTER I WOULD BE READY TO DO A MOTION AND SEE HOW IT FALLS. PLEASE. A MOTION TO APPROVE BASED ON ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA. 3, 5, 6, 8, AND 12. COMMISSIONER GIBBS, I SECOND. CAN I HAVE A, A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION? YES, PLEASE. IS THAT TO APPROVE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OR WHAT ARE WE APPROVING? YES, CORRECT. THAT IS A REQUEST TODAY. H D R C IS A RECOMMENDING BODY. IT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO, UH, ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. SO IF THE MOTION COULD MAYBE BE RECRAFTED SLIGHTLY TO SAY THAT MOTION TO RECOMMENDING, RECOMMEND, RECOMMEND. WELL, IT'S APPROVING A RECOMMENDATION FROM H D R C. DESIGNATE THIS PROPERTY FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION BASED ON CRITERIA 3, 5, 6, 8, AND 12. DOES OUR SECOND CONCUR WITH THAT? RECRAFTING? SECOND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. UM, MAY WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? GIBBS? AYE. FISH? AYE. SAVINA. AYE. VELAZQUEZ NAY. OLA NAYYY MAZUA. AYE. CARPENTER AYE GROUP. AYE THAT SIR? AYE LA AYE. SO THAT'S EIGHT VOTES. SO THE, THE MOTION TO DESIGNATE DOES NOT PASS AND WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER MOTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I, IF IT'S PROPER, I WILL YIELD THE CHAIRMANSHIP TO THE CHAIR. IT'S NOT PROPER BECAUSE YOU NEED TO BE IN PERSON TO PRESIDE OVER THE MEETING. OKAY. I WILL NOT YIELD IT THEN. SO I HAVE A QUESTION AND ACTUALLY, UH, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. AGAIN, I NEED TO RECUSE FROM CASES 11 AND 12. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS FILE MUTE AND TURN OFF MY VIDEO. THANK YOU. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER FETZER HAS MUTED AND TURNED OFF HIS CAMERA. AGENDA [11. Address/Description: 1126 E ELMIRA ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-518 RIO District: RIO-2 Applicant: Daniel Elder/Broadway SA Investors GP LLC Request: Construction of a 7-story, mixed-use structure and site work City Council Dist.: 1] ITEM NUMBER 11, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 5 18 11 20 60 SSM. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A SEVEN STORY MIXED USE STRUCTURE ON THE BLOCK, BOUNDED BY EAST ELMIRA TO THE NORTH SCHILLER TO THE EAST, EAST QUINCY TO THE SOUTH AND EAST PARK TO THE WEST. THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL FEATURE 263 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, STRUCTURED PARKING, GROUND FLOOR, LIVE WORK UNITS AND RETAIL. MR. CHAIR, THE MOTION PAST MOTION DIDN'T PASS. WE'RE NOT DONE . SO BECAUSE THE ONLY OUTCOME IS APPROVED OR DENIAL AND WE NEED NINE VOTES IN ORDER TO APPROVE, THERE'S NO OTHER OUTCOME. AND SO THERE'S NO OTHER ACTION NEEDED. OKAY, I THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING IT. IT'S SIMILAR TO, UM, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THOSE MOTIONS ARE ALWAYS MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, AND IF IT DOESN'T GET NINE VOTES, IT DOESN'T PASS. SO UNDER THE STATE LAW, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE NINE. OTHERWISE THERE'S NO OTHER OPTION. AND WE CAN'T, I MEAN IT, I GUESS IT'S JUST BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW HOW THE COMMISSION IS RIGHT NOW STANDING. AND NO MATTER IF SOME OF THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA ARE REMOVED, THE VOTES WON'T CHANGE. WE DON'T TRY. I MEAN, TECHNICALLY THE, THE QUESTION ABOUT WHICH CRITERIA APPLY WAS ANSWERED AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING WHEN THIS CAME FOR A FINDING. UM, WE DIDN'T WANT TO [01:10:01] KEEP YOU FROM DISCUSSING THOSE IF YOU FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER. BUT, BUT TECHNICALLY TODAY'S ACTION WAS TO APPROVE OR DENY THE DESIGNATION. THANK YOU. PROCEED WITH THE CASE. UH, I'LL START OVER. UM, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 5 18 11 26 EAST DELMIRA. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A SEVEN STORY MIXED USE STRUCTURE ON THE BLOCK, BOUNDED BY EAST ELMIRA TO THE NORTH SILLER TO THE EAST, EAST QUINCY TO THE SOUTH AND EAST PARK TO THE WEST. THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL FEATURE 263 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, STRUCTURED PARKING, GROUND FLOOR, LIVE WORK UNITS IN RETAIL STAFF RECOMMENDS FINAL APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS A THROUGH R WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE PROPOSED CURB CUT ON EAST ELMIRA DOES NOT INTERRUPT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ON THE SIDEWALK. THE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK AT EAST ELMIRA SHOULD FEATURE A UNIFORM HEIGHT AT THE LOCATION OF THE CURB. CUT. THE GRADE CHANGE FOR THE APPROACH SHOULD OCCUR IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT IMPACT SIDEWALK AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. TWO, THAT ALL WINDOWS ARE RECESSED AT LEAST TWO INCHES WITHIN WALL OPENINGS, AND THAT WINDOWS DO NOT FEATURE PHOTO DIVIDED LIGHTS. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT A WINDOW THAT APPEARS AS A TRUE DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOW SHOULD BE USED, THAT A ONE OVER ONE WINDOW SHOULD BE INSTALLED THAT DOES NOT FEATURE, OR THAT A ONE OVER ONE WINDOW BE INSTALLED. THAT DOES NOT FEATURE ANY LIGHTS. THREE, THAT A DETAILED LANDSCAPING AND PAVING DOCUMENT BE SUBMITTED TO O H P STAFFER REVIEWING APPROVAL AND STIPULATION FOUR. AN ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED. THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE LOCAL LAWS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS REGARDING ARCHEOLOGY AS APPLICABLE. UH, THE APPLICANT TODAY IS SPECIFICALLY WANTING TO TALK ABOUT, UH, STIPULATION TWO, UH, THE PROPOSED WINDOWS. AND MICHAEL, I JUST MADE YOU A PANELIST. SORRY, I FORGOT TO DO THAT WHILE EDWARD WAS READING. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO ASK, UH, EDWARD SOMETHING JUST, JUST BEFORE THEY, SO THAT I HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING THE, THE APPLICANT WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE WINDOWS, BUT ARE WE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE PROJECT OR JUST WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO TALK ABOUT? UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND STIPULATIONS WITH EVERYTHING TO THE EXCEPTION OF THIS SPECIFIC WINDOW PRODUCT. UH, SO IT WOULD, I IT WILL ONLY BE THE WINDOWS AND I'LL SHOW THAT. UM, WELL NOW EXHIBIT THE WHOLE PROJECT'S BEFORE US, BUT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE WINDOWS THAT IS THE STIPULA STIPULATION THEY WANT TO ADDRESS. I GOT YOU. OKAY. BUT THAT DOES NOT KEEP YOU FROM ADDING ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS IF YOU THINK THEY'RE NEEDED. THAT'S, THAT'S INCORPORATING IT IN YOUR MOTION. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, THANKS EVERYONE. UM, SO YEAH, THE, THE WINDOWS, UM, WE BELIEVE MEET THE CRITERIA. UM, IT, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE DIVIDED LIGHT IS NOT BETWEEN THE PANES, IT'S ON THE EXTERIOR. UM, THESE ARE THE EXACT SAME WINDOWS, UH, THAT WERE APPROVED AND USED ON OUR SOUTHLINE PROJECT. UM, SO I, I, I GUESS I'D, I'D, IF ANYONE HAS AN ISSUE, I'D, I'D LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, BETTER UNDERSTAND, UM, WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF SINCE THIS WAS APPROVED. UM, SO IF, IF, IF ANYONE HAS ANY COMMENTS, I, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, WELCOME THEM. UM, I'LL BE VERY TRANSPARENT ABOUT THIS, UM, AFTER THE SOUTH LINE WAS BUILT, UM, AND WE WERE ABLE TO SEE THE WINDOWS THAT WERE INSTALLED, UM, STAFF HAD A MEETING WHERE WE TALKED INTERNALLY KIND OF ABOUT OUR, OUR POLICY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF, OF WINDOW SPECIFICATIONS IN RIO. AND WE WERE ALL UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WAS A, UM, INTERNAL MUTTON JUST BECAUSE OF HOW IT KIND OF LOOKS, IT IS KIND OF FLAT IN THE PARENTS. AND SO, UM, IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S INTERNAL VERSUS EXTERNAL. LIKE THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFIC IN THE U D C THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER. UM, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE APPLICATION IS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE U D C AND, AND, UH, AND PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WINDOWS THAT ARE KIND OF AUTHENTIC IN APPEARANCE AND, AND NOT KIND OF FEATURING, FEATURING KIND OF FAUX ELEMENTS. SO EVEN THOUGH IT, IT, YOU KNOW, IT IS AN EXTERNAL AND NOT AN INTERNAL, WHICH IS NORMALLY WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, IT IS A CONCERN. THEY DO LOOK KIND OF, UM, FLAT IN APPEARANCE. OKAY. SO, OH, SORRY. SOMEONE ELSE HAS A COMMENT. GO AHEAD, PLEASE. WELL, YOU CAN ANSWER THIS, BUT, UH, I THINK STAFF COULD ANSWER IT AS WELL. IS THAT A, A REAL, UH, DIVISION OF WINDOWS, OR IS THAT ONE PANE OF GLASS WITH A GLUED ON EXTERIOR? UM, MUTTON. UM, IT IS ONE PANE OF GLASS, I BELIEVE. SO THEN THE INTERIOR'S A FLAT PIECE OF GLASS, THE OUTSIDE HAS THE GLUED ON DETAIL. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. [01:15:02] AND ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS, THESE WINDOWS ARE VINYL AS WELL, CORRECT? CORRECT. THEY'RE VINYL WINDOWS. SO QUESTION TO STAFF SEPARATE FROM THE MATERIALITY. 'CAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN'T CONSIDER, BUT YEAH. THE, THE DIMENSIONAL QUALITIES OF THIS, DO THOSE MEET THE GUIDELINES BY WHICH WE ARE BEING, UM, ASKED TO UPHOLD? IT LOOKED LIKE EDWARD'S GONNA SAY SOMETHING, BUT I CAN'T TELL 'CAUSE OF HIS MASK . OH. UM, BUT, BUT I MEAN, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S LESS ABOUT THE MATERIAL AND MORE ABOUT THE OVERALL APPEARANCE, BUT THE OFFSETS OF DIMENSIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE THOSE INCONSISTENT. THE, THE DIMENSIONS OF THE WINDOW ARE THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO, UH, RECESS THE WINDOW, UH, PER THE, UH, SORRY, THERE'S A, A WALL SECTION SHEET HERE SOMEWHERE. UH, THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO RECESS THE WINDOW, UH, THAT'S NOT A CONCERN AND SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO. UH, IT'S SPECIFICALLY THIS WINDOW IN THE WAY THAT THE MUS ARE PRESENTED ON THE, ON THE PANE, BUT THERE'S ALSO, ISN'T THERE, UM, SOME DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR OFFSETS OF SASHES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, NOT JUST A, THE ENTIRE WINDOW SETBACK WITHIN THE, THE WALL FRAME? CORRECT. THERE ARE, BUT THOSE ARE SPECIFIC TO PROPERTIES THAT ARE ZONED HISTORIC. THIS PROPERTY IS SPECIFICALLY ONLY IN THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY. CORRECT. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT, MR. CHAIR. YES. JUST, JUST IN THE INTEREST OF, UM, GENERATING A, A, A CONVERSATION AROUND AROUND THE, WHAT SEEMS TO BE SUCH A PROMINENT PIECE OF THE DESIGN, RIGHT? ARE THE WINDOWS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE, THE DRAWING THAT IS, UM, IT SHOWS THE GROUND FLOOR. IT'S A, IT'S A, UM, AN ANIMATION. OF COURSE. I DON'T SEE A PAGE NUMBER ON THIS. IS IT ONE OF THE RENDERINGS? IT'S ONE OF THE RENDERINGS, BUT IT'S A GROUND FOUR RENDERING THAT SHOWS THE BLUE, UM, OR THE DARK STEEL BALCONIES, AND THEN ON ONE SIDE, WELL, THAT'S ONE OF 'EM, BUT I THINK THAT'LL DO LET ME KNOW. AND I THINK LEMME KNOW WHEN WENT OFF. WELL, ACTUALLY, IF YOU COULD GO TO GO NO, I'M ZOOMED IN THAT. THAT'S IT. ZOOM IN IF YOU CAN ONCE OR TWICE. OKAY. THAT, THAT'S GOOD RIGHT THERE. MR. CHAIR. ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE, I, I THINK IS IT KINDA GAINS THIS VERY, UM, FACTORY LOOKING, UM, BRICK BUILDING WITH LIKE A CASEMENT WOULD'VE BEEN AN IRON WINDOW, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S A, IT'S A BLACK, UH, A BRONZED, UM, UM, COLOR AND THEN THE REAL REALLY THIN LINE IN, IN, AT THAT SCALE, YOU'RE ONLY GONNA ACHIEVE RIGHT? WITH A, WITH, WITH THOSE OLD SCHOOL IRON CASEMENT WINDOWS. UM, THE, I, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT, WHAT WOULD, UM, PROVIDE THEM WITH, UH, I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT GIVES THEM A, A BALANCE SHEET THAT ENABLES THEM TO AFFORD A WINDOW LIKE THAT. BUT CLEARLY THAT'S THE, THE, UH, THE AESTHETIC THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THE MUTTON ON THE OUTSIDE. AND I MEAN, IT IS A FULL, UH, A FULL LINE. I'M WONDERING WHY IT HAS TO HAVE THE LINE EXCEPT THAT THIS, THE, THE DIVISION OF THE LIGHTS KIND OF ADDS TO THAT OLD FACTORY LOOK, RIGHT? IT'S KIND OF A REMINISCENT OF SOMETHING. UM, WHICH IS, WHICH ALSO HAS, IT KIND OF BEGS THE QUESTION WHY A, A VINYL WINDOW IN THIS CASE AND NOT AN ALUMINUM WINDOW RIGHT. OF BRONZE ALUMINUM. SO I, SO IF I JUST STEP IN REAL QUICK. YES. YES. THIS FACADE, WE'RE LOOKING AT UHHUH THE FIRST FLOOR, ALL THAT FIRST FLOOR THAT IS A SIMULATED STEEL, UM, STOREFRONT WINDOW. SO THE, THE FIRST FLOOR OF THIS FACADE IS ALL SIMULATED STEEL STOREFRONT. OKAY. WELL, I THANK YOU FOR, FOR, FOR THROWING THAT IN THERE BECAUSE IF, IF, IF WE WERE JUST HAVING A CONVERSATION AND YOU WEREN'T, YOU WEREN'T AROUND, UM, IT, IT, MY MY, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? MY, MY IMPRESSION IS, IS CORRECT THEN. SO, YEAH. YOU KNOW, USING KIND OF LIKE AN OLD, LIKE, LIKE A LAS VEGAS STYLE RATIONALE, RIGHT? THAT EVERYTHING DOWN HERE IS BRASS. EVERYTHING UP THERE IS PLASTIC. MM-HMM. , UM, IT, IT SEEMS TO WORK. UM, I, I DO APPRECIATE, UH, STAFF'S, UH, ATTENTION, BUT I, I KNOW THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE RULE GENERALLY AND, AND, UH, BEING FAIR ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT I THINK IT KINDA LOANS ITSELF WITH THAT CLARIFICATION THAT WAS JUST MADE BECAUSE THAT, THAT'S REALLY WHAT MY POINT WAS GONNA BE. UH, WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR VERSUS WHAT HAPPENS AT A LEVEL WHERE YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO TOUCH. UM, AND THOSE ARE JUST COMMENTS FOR THOUGHT, RIGHT? FOOD FOR THOUGHT. THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS, AND THANK YOU FOR SUSSING OUT THAT DISTINCTION [01:20:01] THAT THE GROUND FLOORS ARE DIFFERENT. ANYONE ELSE HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANYONE WHO'S ATTENDING VIRTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT. OKAY. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, PLEASE. UM, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT AS PRESENTED AND, AND, UM, BUT INCLUDING THE REST OF THE, UH, STIPULATIONS THAT STAFF HAS FOR THE, FOR THE APPLICANT? YEP. YES. UM, THAT, YES. AND THEN THE MOTION IS BASICALLY, UM, TRYING TO RESOLVE THE COMMENTS THAT THE, THAT THE APPLICANT HAD. BUT YES, IF THE APPLICANT HAS NO OTHER, UH, OBJECTIONS, THEN AS SUBMITTED, BUT WITH WINDOWS AS PRESENTED, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS EXCEPTION OF THE WINDOW. CAN WE JUST DO WITH STIPULATION ONE, THREE, AND FOUR? YES. SO IF THE, IF THE CRAFTER OF THE MOTION WOULD LIKE TO NAME THE STIPULATION SPECIFICALLY IN YOUR MOTION, THAT WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL FOR THE RECORD. I JUST GOTTA ZOOM BACK BECAUSE IT, IT, YOU ZOOM IN AND THEN YOU ZOOM OUT AND YOU'RE KIND OF LOST THERE. OKAY. SO, UM, UM, MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED WITH PRESENTED WINDOWS AND AS SUBMITTED WITH RECOMMENDATION ONE, THREE, AND FOUR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AS SECOND MAY WE HAVE ROLL CALL PLEASE, MR. CHAIR, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, AND IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION. I, IS THERE, UH, A AFFORDABLE APARTMENT UNITS INCLUDED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT? UM, IS IT ALL MARKET GENERALLY? NO. UM, SO IT, I GUESS TECHNICALLY NO. UM, AS PART OF OUR C CHIP AGREEMENT, UM, WE DO HAVE A MAX RENT PER SQUARE FOOT THAT WE'RE CAPPED AT AND CAN'T EXCEED. UM, AND IT GROWS WITH THE, UM, RATE OF THE, UM, I, I FORGET IT'S THE G D P FOR THE SAN ANTONIO AREA PER CAPITA, RIGHT? UM, IT, SO IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT, UM, NOT AFFORDABLE, BUT WE, WE DO HAVE A CAP ON THE RENT WE CAN CHARGE. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY, THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND A CLARIFICATION ON THE, UH, SOME OF THE ECONOMICS OF THE PROJECT. UH, CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? UNLESS THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ROLL CALL PLEASE. GIBBS. AYE, FISH, UH, COMMISSIONER FISH HAS LEFT THE MEETING. SABINA. AYE. VELAZQUEZ. AYE. OLA. AYE. MAA. AYE. CARPENTER. NAY GRO. AYE BET. THAT'S RECUSED. AND THE AYE. MOTION PASSES. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12, H D R C, CASE [12. Address/Description: 221 NEWELL HDRC Case No.: 2021-523 RIO District: RIO-2 Applicant: Thomas Brown/Clayton Korte Request: Exterior alterations, fenestration modifications, terrace installation, storefront system installation, repair and maintenance, site and paving modifications City Council Dist.: 1] NUMBER 20 21 5 23 2 21. NEWELL, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL. TWO, ONE, PERFORM REHABILITATIVE SCOPES OF WORK INCLUDING ROOF REPAIR, WINDOW AND DOOR REPAIR, FACADE REPAIR, AND REPOINTING AND RESEALING OF EXTERIOR MASONRY. TWO, REPLACE ANY STEEL WINDOWS THAT ARE BEYOND REPAIR WITH THERMALLY BROKEN ALUMINUM. WINDOWS THREE, PERFORM FACADE MODIFICATIONS TO THE SOUTH. THAT IS THE NEW FACADE BY EXPANDING THE EXISTING LOADING DOCK, REPLACING THE EXISTING OVERHEAD, ROLLING DOORS, LOW WALL AND STEEL WINDOWS WITH NEW OVERHEAD DOORS AND NEW ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM, AND CREATE LARGER ENTRY VESTIBULE FOUR, PERFORM FACADE MODIFICATIONS TO THE EAST, THAT IS THE CARNES FACADE BY CREATING SEVERAL NEW ENTRANCES, REPLACING AN EXISTING WINDOW WITH A NEW ENTRY INTO A RAISED DINING TERRACE. THE INSTALLATION OF VARIOUS RAISED TERRACES IN A NEW CANOPY TERRACE. FIVE PERFORM MOD FACADE MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER FACADE BY REMOVING THE FACADE TO CREATE AN OPEN AIR ENTRANCE WITH A RECESSED GLASS DOOR. FRONT SYSTEM SIX, PERFORM MODIFICATIONS TO THE WEST. THAT'S THE ALLEY FACADE BY ADDING A PATIO TERRACE AND BREEZE BLOCK GUARDRAILS, SCREEN WALLS AND SERVICE RAMP AND SEVEN PERFORMED VARIOUS STREET SCAPE ENHANCEMENTS TO KANE STREET, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF BRICK PAVING. TO REPLACE THE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE, REHABILITATIVE SCOPES OF WORK WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT IF THE EXISTING STEEL WINDOWS ARE FOUND TO BE BEYOND REPAIR PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS OF THE REPLACEMENT ALUMINUM WINDOWS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED [01:25:01] TO O H B STAFFER REVIEWING APPROVAL WINDOW PROFILES, INSTALLATION DEPTHS AND COLORS ARE TO MATCH. THE ORIGINAL TWO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER TWO F FACADE MODIFICATIONS TO THE SOUTH FACADE BASED ON FINDING C WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS THAT ALL REMOVE FACADE MATERIALS SHALL BE SALVAGED FOR REUSE. THAT DETAILED PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS FOR, FOR THE PROPOSED STOREFRONT SYSTEM ARE SUBMITTED TO O H P STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER THREE, FACADE MODIFICATIONS TO THE EAST FACADE BASED ON FINDING D WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT ALL REMOVE FACADE MATERIAL SHALL BE SALVAGED FOR REUSE. AND TWO, THAT DE THAT DETAILED PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED STOREFRONT SYSTEM ARE SUBMITTED TO O H P STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FOUR. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FOUR, FACADE MODIFICATIONS TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER BASED ON FINDING E WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT ALL REMOVE FACADE MATERIALS SHALL BE, SHALL BE SALVAGED FOR REUSE. AND TWO, THE DETAILED PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED STOREFRONT SYSTEM ARE SUBMITTED TO O H P STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE, FACADE MODIFICATIONS TO THE WEST FACADE BASED ON FINDING F WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS THAT ALL REMOVE FACADE MATERIAL. SALBY SALVAGE FOR REUSE AND SIX STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER SIX STREET SCAPE MODIFICATIONS TO THE KARN STREET TO KARN STREET WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION. ONE THAT A DETAIL LANDSCAPING AND SITE PAVING PLANS BE SUBMITTED TO O H P STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND SPECIFICALLY WANTS TO PRESENT ON, UH, THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE SOUTH FACADE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPLICANT IS THAT THE SOUTH FACADE BE MAINTAINED, UM, AS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THIS STRUCTURE. THANK YOU. MARK. MAY WE HAVE THE APPLICANT? YES. HI, MY NAME IS SAM MANNING. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TODAY TO, TO LOOK AT THIS PROJECT. UM, SO ON THE, THIS SOUTH NEWELL FACADE, UM, THE LOADING DOCK, THE EXISTING CONDITION AND THE DOORS, UM, ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS IT'S A, IT'S A FUNCTIONAL ISSUE IS THAT THE, THE TRUCKS THAT ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE LOADING INTO THIS NEW LOADING DOCK AREA, THEY'RE TOO TALL FOR THE EXISTING AWNING AND THEY'RE UNABLE TO MAKE THE TURNING RADIUS, UM, OF ONE OF THE EXISTING COLUMNS THAT WE HAVE TO REMOVE TO MAKE THAT WIDE ENOUGH TO MAKE IT FUNCTIONAL FOR THE, THE OPERATIONS OF THAT SPACE. UH, WHAT WE'VE DONE ON THIS, ON THE KIND OF THIRD LEFT OF THE FACADE THERE IS TO MAINTAIN, UM, YOU KNOW, ANY OF THE SOLID WALLS BACK WITH STUCCO TO, TO KEEP WITH THE EXISTING LOOK AND FEEL OF THE MATERIALITY THERE. UM, TAKING THE, THE NEW GARAGE DOORS AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE IN LINE WITH WHAT WAS EXISTING AS FAR AS THE, THE SHAPE, THE PROPORTION OF THE, THE LIGHTS, AND THEN THE SOLID TOP AND BOTTOMS OF THOSE. UM, AND THEN ALONG WITH, UM, THE, THE GRIDS FOR THE, THE STUCCO REVEALS, UM, ALONG THE NEW FACADE, THE CENTER AREA WHERE WE HAVE THE, UM, ALUMINUM IN THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE, THE SAMUELS GLASS COMPANY BUILDING THAT IS STAYING AS IT IS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE DOOR THAT WE'RE WANTING TO REMOVE THERE, UM, TO PROVIDE FOR, UH, CODE EGRESS FOR THE REQUIRED CLEARANCE AT THE TOP OF THAT STAIR. UM, UH, OTHER THAN THAT, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THE, ON THE, THE LOADING DOCK AREA, THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WHY WE'VE HAD TO GO IN, IN THAT MOVE THAT CALM AND ADJUST THAT FACADE. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DO, MR. CHAIR. OKAY. FOR, FOR, FOR THE, UM, UH, THE, UH, APPLICANT, UH, IN TERMS OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SIX RECOMMENDATIONS THERE ARE, ARE YOU IN LINE WITH ALL SIX OF THOSE? IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU ABSOLUTELY, UM, DON'T, DON'T SEE, SEE AS THE THING THAT, THAT BENEFITS YOUR PROJECT? NO, WE TAKE, WE TAKE NO ISSUES WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR THE STIPULATIONS IN THE, IN THE SIX, UH, ITEMS THERE. SO JUST THE SIX NUMBER SIX, WHY DON'T YOU PUT THOSE ON THE SCREEN, EDWARD, WITH THAT COMMENT? UM, I'LL MAKE A MOTION JUST ONE SEC. GETTING YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE STILL GETTING CLARIFICATION ON SOMETHING. SO, SO THERE'S, UM, SIX A A CHALLENGE THIS QUESTION TO THE OWNER, UH, AS FAR AS, UH, FOR PROVIDING THE SITE PAVING PLANS AND THE DETAILED LANDSCAPING. WELL, WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE, WITH RESPECT TO YOU NOT HAVING ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE SIX, TO THE SIX, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS. I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT THERE WAS SOME ISSUES WITH NUMBER SIX, BUT I I MIGHT NOT HAVE HEARD PROPERLY. NO, NO, NO. THERE'S, THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH NUMBER SIX. AND, AND HOW [01:30:01] ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE ONE OF EACH ONE THAT, THAT ALL REMOVE SUB MATERIALS BE SALVAGED FOR REUSE? ARE, ARE YOU CAPABLE Y'ALL, OF DOING THAT? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL ARE YES, YES. COMMITT WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL DEFINITELY MAKE SURE TO, TO NOTE THAT IN OUR DRAWINGS TO THE CONTRACTOR TO SALVAGE ALL DEMOLITION MATERIALS ON ALONG THAT FACADE FOR REUSE. OKAY. WELL THANK YOU SIR. APPRECIATE IT. YEP. SO WITH THAT, UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES. I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU ALSO RIGHT. UM, MOVE TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS STIPULATIONS. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION TO I'LL SECOND AND WE HAVE A SECOND AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ASK A, A QUICK COMMENT. UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT THE, UH, THE SIGNAGE WILL BE RETURNED TO THE BUILDING, THE, THAT SORT OF ICONIC SIGNAGE THAT'S AT THE, UH, THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING? THAT IS CORRECT. THERE IS NO INTENTION OF OF REMOVING THAT RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS, CORRECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. ROLL CALL PLEASE. GIBBS. AYE THIS IS NO LONGER HERE. UH, SABINA NAY VELAZQUEZ AYE. BAROLA ABSTAIN. MASUKA AYE. CARPENTER AYE. GRO AYE. FETZER FETZER IS RECRE RECUSED. AND LET THE RECORD, UH, REFLECT THAT HE'S HAD HIS CAMERA OFF THIS WHOLE TIME. AND THE AYE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER [13. Address/Description: 3215 ROOSEVELT AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-373 Historic District Name: Mission Applicant: Douglas Caffey/Empire Canopy Sign and Construction Request: Signage City Council Dist.: 3 (Part 1 of 2)] 13, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 3 73 32 15 ROOSEVELT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL A SIGNAGE FASCIA ON EACH SIDE OF THE EXISTING FUEL CANOPY. THE SIGNAGE FASCIA WILL READ SCO ON THE FRONT EAST, ELEVATIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND FLAT NON ILLUMINATED LETTERS. OTHER ELEVATIONS WILL ONLY FEATURE NEW PANELS WITH NO SIGNAGE. THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE FACIAL WOULD FEATURE A LENGTH OF APPROXIMATELY 36 FEET ON THE EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS, AND APPROXIMATELY 24 FEET SIX INCHES ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS. THE APPLICATION NOTES THAT THE EXISTING CANDIDLY FLOODLIGHTS MAY BE USED TO ILLUMINATE THE SIGNAGE FA THE FASCIA SIGNAGE, MONUMENT SIGNAGE AND FUEL PUMP GRAPHICS WERE APPROVED BY THE H D R C WITH STIPULATIONS ON OCTOBER THE 20TH, 2021. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE BASED ON FINDING E WITH THE STIPULATION AT THE SIGNAGE BE LOCATED ON EITHER THE NORTH OR SOUTH FACADE AS THE NOT FACED DIRECTLY TOWARD MISSION SAN JOSE AND THE APPLICANT IS JOINING US VIRTUALLY. UM, EDWARD, YOU HAD STACY HURST ON YOUR LIST. WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT MIGHT BE REPRESENTING THIS PROJECT? UH, EITHER HER OR HEATHER LYNN. SO I DON'T HAVE THEM ON MY LIST. UM, I'M ACTUALLY RIGHT ON MY ESTIMATE. I TOLD THEM APPROXIMATELY FOUR 30, SO, UM, I'LL SEND THEM AN EMAIL AND ASK IF THEY'VE HAD ANY ISSUES LOGGING IN. SO, TO STAFF'S KNOWLEDGE, YOU ALL HAVE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT YOUR, UM, STIPULATION WITH THEM? WERE THEY IN AGREEMENT WITH IT? THEY WERE NOT IN AGREEMENT. OKAY. THEY SAID THERE'S A BRAND STANDARD OF THEM NOT BEING ABLE TO LOCATE IT WHERE WE PER WHERE WE ASKED OR SOMETHING. ALRIGHT. IF, IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO, UH, GET A HOLD OF THEM, SHOULD WE TABLE THIS FOR A FEW MINUTES UNTIL THEY CAN COME ON BOARD AND WE CAN GO ONTO THE NEXT CASE? UM, YES. ACTUALLY, IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT CASE, UM, I BELIEVE THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS COMPLETELY, UM, SO THAT WE COULD HEAR THAT CASE AND THEN, UM, MAYBE THEY'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN WHEN WE RETURN. THANK [14. Address/Description: 209 ALAMO PLAZA HDRC Case No.: 2021-501 Historic District Name: Alamo Plaza RIO District: RIO-3 Applicant: David Hannan/Fisher Heck Architects Request: Storefront system installation, exterior modifications, repair and maintenance, canopy installation City Council Dist.: 1] YOU. LET'S PROCEED TO ITEM NUMBER 14 PLEASE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 14, H D R C. CASE NUMBER 20 21 5 0 1 2 0 9 ALAMO PLAZA. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE PERFORM REHABILITATIVE SCOPES OF WORK INCLUDING WINDOW REPAIR, FASCIA AND SOFFIT REPAIR, STOREFRONT SYSTEM REPAIR ON THE EAST FACADE AND MASONRY CLEANING. TWO, TO INSTALL A NEW WOOD STOREFRONT SYSTEM ON THE WEST FACADE TO FEATURE WOOD DOORS. THREE. INSTALL A NEW STEEL FRAME CANOPY ON THE WEST FACADE AND FOUR, TO RELOCATE THE EXISTING ROOF HATCH. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE, REHABILITATIVE SCOPES OF WORK BASED ON FINDING C WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, ONE THAT ALL REPAIR WORK BE DONE IN KIND TWO. THAT THE PROPOSED COMPOSITE PANEL ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE SS FEATURE A SMOOTH FINISH. THREE, THAT ALL MASON CLEANING BE DONE IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT DAMAGE THE HISTORIC BRICK FACADE. TWO. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW STOREFRONT SYSTEM ON THE WEST FACADE WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ONE THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A DETAILED SECTION OF THE NEW STOREFRONT SYSTEM TO STAFF FOR REVIEW TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. [01:35:01] AND TWO, THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A PROPOSED WOOD DOORS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER THREE, THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW CANOPY BASED ON THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION OR WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AT THE CANOPY'S HEIGHT BE REDUCED TO BE PLACED CONSISTENTLY WITH THE HISTORIC EXAMPLES COMMONLY, COMMONLY FOUND IMMEDIATELY BETWEEN THE STOREFRONT SYSTEM AND TRANSOM WINDOWS. TWO, THAT THE PROPOSED STANDING SEA METAL ROOF MEET STAFF STANDARD STIPULATIONS. AND THREE, THAT THE PROPOSED CANOPY FEATURE OF PROFILE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH HIS HISTORIC CANOPY DETAILS, THE EXPOSED STEEL BEAM SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR COVERED. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE. THE ROOF HATCH RELOCATION WITH THE STIPULATION AT THE EXISTING ROOF AND WALL PARAPET PROFILES REMAIN UNCHANGED IN ARCHEOLOGY. THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE LAW LOCAL LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING ARCHEOLOGY. UH, THE APPLICANT, DAVID HANNON, UH, IS JOINING US VIRTUALLY. SO MAY WE HAVE A COMMENT FROM THE, UM, APPLICANT REGARDING, UH, ACCEPTANCE OF THE, UH, STIPULATIONS? YES. THIS IS, UH, DAVID HANNON AND PRINCIPLE AT FISHER HECK ARCHITECTS. UM, YEAH, WE'VE DISCUSSED ALL THE, UM, STIPULATIONS WITH STAFF AND WE ARE, UM, AGREEMENT IN AGREEMENT AND HAVE NO ISSUE WITH, UM, THE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SO WE'VE ALREADY STARTED IMPLEMENTING THEM INTO, INTO OUR DRAWINGS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. YES. UH, WITH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT AS PRESENTED. OKAY. UH, BY STAFF WITH ALL THE STIPULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN AGREED UPON. SO WE HAVE A, UH, MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER GIBBS SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF STIPULATION WITH SECOND, UH, ROLL CALL PLEASE. UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION, THERE'S NO FURTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION INDICATED ROLL CALL PLEASE. BB AYE V IS ABSENT. SAVINA AYE. VELAZQUEZ AYE. OLA. AYE. . AYE. CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP. AYE. ZER. AYE. UNE AYE. MOTION PASSES. MOTION PASSES. I, UH, GIVE MY THANKS TO THE OWNER FOR THEIR COMMITMENT TO THIS PROPERTY AND MY, UH, MY, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, APPRECIATION TO OUR COLLEAGUES OVER AT FISHER HECK FOR SUCH A GOOD JOB. WE'RE, UH, GOING TO KEEP MOVING. WE HAVE, UH, NO APPLICANT FOR ITEM NUMBER [15. Address/Description: 1103 E COMMERCE ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-552 Landmark Name: Individual Landmark Historic District Name: St Paul Square Applicant: Philip Ewing/Signarama Request: Signage City Council Dist.: 2] 13. SO NEXT WE'LL HEAR ITEM NUMBER 15. ALRIGHT, 1103 EAST COMMERCE, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 5 50. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL. TWO ONE, INSTALL A WALL MOUNTED INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN OF FEATURE, EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT AND SEVEN FEET NINE AND 11 SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH IN WIDTH FOR A TOTAL SIZE OF APPROXIMATELY 62 SQUARE FEET TO BE LOCATED ON THE EAST FACADE. THIS SIGN WILL FEATURE PLASTIC FACES AND WILL REPLACE THE EXISTING WALL SIGN. THIS SIGN IS IDENTIFIED AS SIGN IN ZERO ONE IN THE SIGNAGE DOCUMENTS. TWO TO INSTALL A WALL MOUNTED INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN TO FEATURE FIVE FEET, SIX AND 11 SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH IN HEIGHT AND FIVE FEET SIX AND SEVEN EIGHTHS INCH IN WIDTH FOR A TOTAL SIZE OF APPROXIMATELY 31 SQUARE FEET TO BE LOCATED ON THE NORTH FACADE OF THE REAR CANOPY. THE SIGN WILL FEATURE PLASTIC FACES. THIS SIGN IS IDENTIFIED AS N ZERO TWO AND WILL NOT REPLACE AN EXISTING SIGN IN THIS LOCATION. THREE TO REFACE AN EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN THAT IS CURRENTLY LOCATED AT THE CENTER STREET ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY. THIS SIGN WILL NOT CHANGE IN SIZE OR LOCATION. THIS SIZE IS A SIGN IS IDENTIFIED AS N ZERO THREE IN THE SIGNAGE DOCUMENTS FOUR TO REFACING AN EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN THAT IS CURRENTLY LOCATED AT THE CHESTNUT STREET ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY. THIS SIGN WILL NOT CHANGE IN SIZE OR LOCATION. THIS SIGN IS IDENTIFIED AS N ZERO FOUR IN THE SIGNAGE DOCUMENTS. AND FIVE TO INSTALL A WALL MOUNTED INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN TO FEATURE EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT AND SEVEN FEET, SEVEN FEET NINE AND 11 SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH AND WIDTH. FOR A TOTAL SIZE OF APPROXIMATELY 62 SQUARE FEET TO BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH FACADE. THE SIGN WILL FEATURE PLASTIC FACES AND WILL REPLACE AN EXISTING WALL SIGN. THE SIGN IS IDENTIFIED AS N ZERO FIVE IN THE SIGNAGE DOCUMENTS. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE. THE INSTALLATION OF A WALL MOUNTED INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN IS NOTED IN FINDING D STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT INSTALL SIGNAGE THAT FEATURES METAL CONSTRUCTION AND INDIRECT ILLUMINATION. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO. THE INSTALLATION OF A WALL MOUNTED INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN IS NOTED IN FINDING E STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT INSTALL SIGNAGE THAT FEATURES METAL CONSTRUCTION AND INDIRECT ILLUMINATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEMS NUMBER THREE AND FOUR, THE REFACING OF TWO SIGNS ON CENTER AND CHESTNUT STREETS STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE, THE INSTALLATION OF A WALL MOUNTED [01:40:01] INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN ON THE SOUTH FACADE. AS NOTED IN FINDING G, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, UH, MR. BRANDON BRANDON EWING JOINING US VIRTUALLY. THANK YOU. MR. EWING, WOULD YOU WANNA MAKE A COMMENT? YES. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME TODAY. UM, SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE HAVE IS, UH, WE'RE BASICALLY LOOKING TO DO A ONE FOR ONE CHANGE OUT ON THESE SIGNS THAT ARE EXISTING. UM, WE MAY BE ACTUALLY MISUNDERSTANDING THE, UH, THE TERMINOLOGY, UH, A METAL, UH, METAL SIGN WITH, UM, UH, THE ILLUMINATION, YOU KNOW, NOT INTERNAL ILLUMINATION. UM, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SOMETHING LIKE A CHANNEL LETTER, A REVERSE LIT CHANNEL LETTER, A HALO LIT SIGN? YES, SIR. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE UNDERSTOOD IT TO JUST BE A FLAT PANEL WITH LIGHTS SHINING ON IT. , THAT'S ALSO AN OPTION, BUT HALO LIT, UH, REVERSE LIT, BACK LIT AS LONG AS IT'S NOT A GLOWING CABINET. OKAY. OKAY. THAT, THAT MAY, UH, THAT MAY BE OUR RESOLUTION HERE, BUT, UM, I AM NOT SURE THAT OUR CUSTOMER WANTS TO GO THAT DIRECTION. UH, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HAVE TO BRING UP WITH THEM. UM, IN ANY EVENT, UH, WE, WE DID WANNA POINT OUT THAT, UH, THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING HAS TWO, OR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS TWO BUILDINGS. THE ONE WITH THE SIGNAGE HAPPENS TO BE NOT A HISTORICAL BUILDING, IF YOU WILL. UH, THE ONE THAT'S ON THE, UH, ON THE CORNER, YOU CAN SEE ON THE, ON THE FAR LEFT OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY IS THE ACTUAL HISTORICAL BUILDING, UH, ON THIS PROPERTY PER SE. UM, THAT ONE DOESN'T HAVE ANY REAL SIGNAGE, AS YOU KNOW, IS, IS NOTHING IN OUR PROPOSAL. SO WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO MODIFY THAT BUILDING IN ANY WAY THAT I, THAT I KNOW OF ANYWAY. UM, AND AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY A ONE FOR ONE CHANGE TO WHAT IS EXISTING THERE. JUST, IT'S, IT'S MORE OF LIKE A COPY CHANGE THAT YOU WOULD SEE. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. EWING. UM, I THINK BECAUSE YOU'RE THE, WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, I DON'T THINK IT'S, UH, PARTICULARLY, UM, RELEVANT WHETHER IT'S THESE SIGNS ARE GOING ON THE HISTORIC BUILDING OR ON THE, THE NEWER BUILDING. IF I, IF I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY. UM, IF YOU FEEL LIKE THE CHANNEL LETTERS OR THE HALO CHANNEL LETTERS IS SOMETHING THAT ACCEPTABLE TO, UM, YOUR CLIENT, UH, YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF EITHER HAVING US, UH, PLACE A MOTION, SEE IF IT PASSES WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS, OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO WITHDRAW THE CASE TO CON CONFER WITH YOUR, UH, CLIENT AND COME BACK TO US. UH, YEAH, I THINK IF, IF, IF THAT OPTION IS, IS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, UM, IN THE, IN THE AREA, THEN I'D SAY THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD PROBABLY CONSIDER. UM, IF, IF THAT'S THE FIELD OF THE PANEL, THEN, THEN I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY BE ALL RIGHT TO GO AHEAD AND, AND PULL THE PLUG, PLUG ON THIS PARTICULAR, UH, EFFORT AND WE'LL, WE'LL REVISIT WITH THE, WITH THE REVISED DRAWINGS. OKAY. UM, YEAH, JUST, UH, YOU CAN CONTINUE TO WORK WITH STAFF TO CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS AND, AND PERHAPS WE OKAY. SEE YOU VERY SOON. ALRIGHT, WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYONE. WELL, AND I'LL REMIND EVERYONE THAT ANYTHING THAT IS A TRUE REFACE, SO SAME SIZE AND LOCATIONS, UM, AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE LIGHTING AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. ALRIGHT. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU MR. EWING. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY HOPE ON ITEM NUMBER 13? NO, UH, NO. AND I HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THEM, SO, UH, WE WILL JUST KEEP MOVING. OKAY. WE'LL KEEP MOVING. UH, ITEM [16. Address/Description: 9536 Espada Road HDRC Case No.: 2021-514 Historic District Name: Mission RIO District: RIO-6 Applicant: Lauro Garza Request: Front, Side, Rear Fencing and a Driveway Gate installation City Council Dist.: 3 (Part 1 of 2)] NUMBER 16, PLEASE. ALRIGHT, UM, AGENDA, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 16 H D R C CASE 2021 DASH 5 14 95 36 OF SPOTTER ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE AN EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE WITH NEW FENCING. THE PROPOSED HEIGHT IS SIX FEET AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER, [01:45:04] SORRY. UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS B THROUGH F WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS THAT THE PROPOSED PRIVACY FENCE DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE FRONT WALL PLANE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE SITE. NUMBER TWO, THE PROPOSED FRONT YARD FENCE BE NO TALLER THAN FOUR FEET AND PREDOMINANTLY OPEN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES. UH, THREE, ARCHEOLOGY THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING ARCHEOLOGY. AS APPLICABLE, THE ASADA ASAKIA SHALL BE PRESERVED AND SHALL NOT BE IMPACTED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION. STAFF HAS GENERAL CONCERN ABOUT THE SENSITIVITY OF THE SITE AND THE IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE ASAKIA. DETAILED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLANS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AND PROVIDED PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL. THAT INCLUDES THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION AND PROXIMITY TO THE HISTORIC ASAKIA AND MEASURES TAKEN TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE U D C SECTION 35 DASH 6 72 DOES NOT ALLOW DRAINAGE INTO THE ASAKIA. MOREOVER, THE FORMAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS SHOULD IDENTIFY NO SUBSURFACE WORK, UTILITIES, GRADING, ET CETERA, WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE EX EXTENT. AS ASAKIA, NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR WITHIN THE BUFFER AREA. INFIELD PROTECTION OF THE ASAKIA SHOULD INCLUDE, INCLUDE ORANGE CONSTRUCTION, FENCING AND SILT FENCING AT A BUFFER DISTANCE OF FIVE FEET FROM THE FEATURE. UH, THIS FENCING SHOULD BE PRESENT ON SITE UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, THE ASA SHALL NOT BE USED FOR STORMWATER DRAINAGE. FURTHERMORE, THE ASAKIA SHALL NOT BE USED FOR STORAGE EQUIPMENT CLEANING OR ANY OTHER USE DURING DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD IMPACT THE FEATURE. AND, UM, I BELIEVE THE, UM, APPLICANT IS WITH US VIRTUALLY, UH, MR. LARO GARZA? NO, I'M SORRY. I MADE YOU READ ALL THAT. WE, WE DO NOT HAVE AN APPLICANT, UM, I DON'T BELIEVE. UM, MR. GARZA, IF YOU'RE WATCHING THE LIVE STREAM, BE SURE TO FOLLOW THE LINK AND JOIN THE ATTENDEE LIST AND I'LL BE ABLE TO PULL YOU IN THAT WAY. UM, BUT UNTIL THEN, I'LL LOOK TO YOU TO SEE IF WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH OTHER ITEMS. UM, IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT IS ARE THEY UNDERSTANDING OF THE STIPULATIONS OR IN AGREEMENT WITH HIM? I DID SPEAK WITH HIM, UM, I BELIEVE YESTERDAY AND HE KIND OF MADE IT SOUND LIKE, UM, STAFF HAD MADE THEIR, THEIR MIND UP AND I KIND OF ENCOURAGED HIM TO ATTEND THE HEARING TO OKAY. KIND OF SHARE HIS PIECE. OH, MR. CHAIR. YES, THAT BEING SAID, I, I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE. MAY WE PERHAPS TABLE THIS UNTIL PERHAPS THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT? SO, WELL, IT, YOUR COMMENTS REFER GENERALLY IT DOESN'T, YEAH, IT DOESN'T, DIDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO DO. I, I DON'T THINK WITH THE, WITH THE APPLICANT IN A NEGATIVE WAY. I, UM, IT'S A DISTRICT THREE, UM, PROPERTY. UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, AS A SOUTH SIDER WE BECOME VERY, VERY, UH, AWARE OF WHAT THAT MEANS FROM A, FROM A HOLISTIC URBAN STANDPOINT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW IT, I GUESS AFTER A CERTAIN AGE, RIGHT? YOU'VE BEEN AROUND SO MANY DECADES, YOU, YOU, YOU UNDERSTAND THE URBAN ASPECTS OF THE SOUTH SIDE AND THE, AND THE RURAL ASPECTS OF THE SOUTH SIDE. AND, AND YOU, YOU LEARN THEM INTIMATELY. UH, THE, THE STIPULATIONS, THE RE THE RECOMMENDATION ONE AND TWO, THEY, THEY'RE NOT VERY SENSITIVE OR VERY OR ACCURATE TO REALITY IN THE RURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE SOUTH SIDE. SO A FRONT YARD FENCE BEGINNING AT THE FACADE OF A PROPERTY IN THE RURAL ENVIRONMENT IS NOT ONLY UNHEARD OF, BUT IT'S, IT'S KIND OF, UM, ALMOST DANGEROUS. THE, THE, ALSO THE GUIDELINE FOR THESE RURAL PROPERTIES FOR A FOUR FOOT HEIGHT IS, IS IS NOT ONLY NOT REALISTIC TO WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH ON THE SOUTH SIDE IN THE RURAL ENVIRONMENT, IT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS KEEPING PEOPLE WALKING DOWN THE STREET. YOU GOT A FOUR FOOT FENCE AND THEY KNOW NOT TO JUMP THE FENCE. HERE YOU HAVE HORSES AND YOU HAVE WOW HOGS AND YOU HAVE THINGS THAT THERE ARE REASONS WHY YOU HAVE CATTLE FENCES IN THE SOUTH SIDE. IT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF THE CITY, I WOULD THINK. MAYBE NOT GOING TOWARD HELOTES OR GOING OUT IN ANY OF THE CREEKS. SO IF, IF, IF THERE WAS ANY GUESS AS TO WHAT SOMEONE WOULD BE, UH, POSING IT, IT WOULD BE THE FOREFOOT FENCE. AND I SAY THAT WHEN [01:50:01] LOOKING AT THE CASE, APPARENTLY THERE IS NOTHING PRESENTED TO US THAT IS ASKING FOR A FOUR FOOT FENCE OR A FENCE THAT BEGINS AT THE FRONT, UH, FACADE OF THE HOUSE. NOW, UH, CULTURALLY SPEAKING, EXCUSE ME. YES. UM, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE MAKING A HUGELY VALID POINT, UH, BUT I'D RATHER DISCUSS THAT WHILE THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT SO WE JUST FOR EFFICIENCY SAKE AND, AND, AND MOVE ON 'CAUSE, BUT I DO, I DO, UH, CONCUR THAT THERE MAY BE SOME DIFFERENT FACTORS INVOLVED HERE. I I APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH, THANK YOU SIR. AND I, AND I HATE TO INTERRUPT ANYONE, BUT I'M TRY AND KEEP EFFICIENT HERE. ALRIGHT, LET US MOVE ON THEN. UNLESS, UH, CASE 13 HAS SHOWN UP. LET'S PROCEED THEN TO THE NEXT ONE AND, UH, MOMENTARILY TABLE THIS CASE UNTIL PERHAPS WE CAN GET THE APPLICANT ONLINE TO, TO, TO, TO HELP ECHO PERHAPS THAT ARGUMENT. LET'S [17. Address/Description: 210 E RISCHE HDRC Case No.: 2021-532 Historic District Name: Nathan Applicant: Mario Salinas/MDB Architecture Request: Exterior alterations, lighting, window replacement, roof replacement, porch modifications City Council Dist.: 1] PROCEED TO ITEM NUMBER 17, PLEASE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 17 H D R C CASE 2021 DASH 5 32 2 10 EAST RE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL FOR TO, UH, ONE, REPLACE THE EXISTING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF WITH A NEW METAL ROOF. REPLACE SEVEN EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS WITH ALUMINUM WINDOWS. REPLACE THREE EXISTING ALUMINUM WINDOWS WITH ALUMINUM WINDOWS. REMOVE ONE EXISTING WOOD WINDOW FROM THE EAST ELEVATION AND ENCLOSED WITH SIDING, REPLACE THE EXISTING METAL PORCH HANDRAILS AND WOOD RAILINGS, MODIFY THE FRONT PORCH COLUMNS, INSTALL LIMESTONE SKIRTING AT THE FRONT OF THE MAIN HOUSE AND INSTALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING. ALL RIGHT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEMS 1, 3, 5, 6, AND EIGHT. UM, AND ITEM ONE AGAIN IS THE METAL ROOF REPLACEMENT WITH OUR STANDARD STIPULATIONS. UM, ITEM THREE IS REPLACEMENT OF THE THREE ALUMINUM WINDOWS, UM, WITH OUR STANDARD, UH, WINDOW STIPULATIONS AS NOTED IN THE FINDINGS OR THE RECOMMENDATION, EXCUSE ME, ITEM FIVE IN KIND REPLACEMENT OF THE FRONT PORCH METAL HANDRAILS AS PROPOSED AND BALLERS WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE BALLISTERS BE WOOD AND A FINAL DESIGN BE SUBMITTED TO O H P STAFF FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO A C O A BEING ISSUED. ITEM SIX, THE FRONT PORCH COLUMN MODIFICATIONS WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE COLUMNS AND BASES BE WOOD AND AN UPDATED DRAWING BE SUBMITTED TO O H P STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO A C O A BEING ISSUED. AND THE INSTALLATION OF EXTERIOR LIGHTING AT THE FRONT AND REAR OF THE HOUSE AS PROPOSED STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEMS. UH, ITEM TWO, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE WOOD WINDOWS STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE WOOD WINDOWS BE REPAIRED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. ITEM FOUR, THE REMOVAL OF THE WOOD WINDOW ON THE EAST ELEVATION AND IN CLOSING WITH SIDING STAFF RECOMMENDS MAINTAINING THIS WINDOW OPENING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. AND ITEM SEVEN, THE INSTALLATION OF LIME LIMESTONE. SKIRTING STAFF RECOMMENDS MAINTAINING THE FLARED DESIGN OF THE SKIRTING AND MATCHING THE EXISTING WOOD SIDING AT THE SKIRTING AREA, INSTALLING WOOD LAP SKIRTING OR A, UH, SMOOTH FINISH HARDY PLANK SKIRTING WITH A REVEAL THAT DOES NOT EXCEED SIX INCHES. AND JUST A CASE COMMENT. UM, O H P STAFF, UH, DID ISSUE A C O A FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE VINYL SIDING, UM, TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO FURTHER ASSESS THE WOOD SIDING UNDERNEATH THERE, UM, TO DETERMINE KIND OF NEXT STEPS ON THAT. AND, UM, THERE IS, THERE IS A, UM, A LETTER IN YOUR PACKET FROM THE KING WILLIAM, UM, ASSOCIATION, THEIR ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE. AND JUST AS A SUMMARY, UH, THE KING WILLIAM ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE CONCURS WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS AND STIPULATIONS. DO WE HAVE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT HERE? OR THE APPLICANT? HELLO? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. UH, YES, THIS, UH, FLORE MAY AND I'M ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE HOUSE. AND, UH, I HAVE MARIO, HE'S THE ARCHITECT, AND I HAVE, UH, RUDY, HE'S OTHER OWNER. AND I GUESS, SHOULD I GO DOWN THE LIST ONE THROUGH EIGHT? YEP. YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO, UH, OKAY. TO SPEAK TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND STIPULATIONS IF YOU ALL ARE ACCEPTING OF ANY OF THEM, SO WE CAN KIND OF DISPENSE WITH THOSE [01:55:01] QUICKLY AND FOCUS WITH THE, ON THE ONES THAT, UH, YOU'RE IN, UH, NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH. GOT IT. OKAY. SO NUMBER ONE, UH, IT SAYS REPLACE EXISTING TENANT IN METAL RULE WITH THE NEW METAL ROOF. GUESS UH, WE, WE, CAN WE AGREE? I MEAN, UH, WELL, WE, WE DON'T AGREE, BUT WE ARE OKAY. WE CAN REPLACE THE, WE, WE, WE CAN REPLACE THE ROOF WITH, WITH, UH, WHAT WAS PROPOSED. SO WE CAN DO THAT. AND THERE ARE SOME VERY SPECIFIC STIPULATIONS THAT ARE PART OF THAT ON THE SIZE OF THE PANELS AND, UH, YES. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THOSE? YES, WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. I MEAN, UH, I, I, I GOT A, I RECEIVE A FEW CALLS FROM A FEW DIFFERENT ROOFING COMPANIES AND, UH, IT'S GONNA BE A CHALLENGE, BUT IT CAN BE DONE AND, UH, I GUESS WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN ON THIS ONE. WE APPRECIATE THAT. HOW ABOUT ITEM UH, TWO? RIGHT NOW STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE WOOD WINDOWS. OKAY. WITH THAT. AND IS, IS GARY ON, ON THE, ON THE CONFERENCE? YES, I'M HERE. OH, HEY GARY, I GUESS, UH, AND GARY, I MET GARY ON SITE I BELIEVE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. AND, UH, SHE, SHE SENT ME SOME REFERENCES, SOME, UH, CONTRACTORS, PEOPLE THAT SPECIALIZE IN RESTORING WINDOWS. AND I CONTACTED, UH, 8, 8 8 OF THEM OR ALL OF THEM, BUT, UH, ONLY THREE, I ONLY HEARD BACK FROM THREE. AND ONE I BELIEVE WAS HIS NAME IS ADAM. HE'S WITH, UH, A, A O DESIGNING CONSTRUCTION. AND, UH, HE GAVE ME A PRICE ON THREE WINDOWS, BUT DIDN'T, I MEAN, UH, HE COULDN'T, HE DID NOT PROVIDE ME A PRICE ON THE THREE ALUMINUM WINDOWS. AND, AND, UH, WITH ANOTHER GUY, HIS NAME IS MR. GOOD FROM GUY ACHIEVEMENT CONSTRUCTION OP, HE SAID THAT THE WINDOWS WERE IN REALLY BAD CONDITION AND UNTIL, YOU KNOW, UNTIL THE WORK STARTED, IT WOULD BE REALLY HARD FOR HIM TO PROVIDE A PRICE BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T KNOW REALLY UNTIL HE STARTED TRYING TO RESTORE THEM. AND, AND, UH, I DO HAVE ANOTHER CODE. HIS NAME IS, UH, HIS SALAZAR MEAL SHOP. THAT'S THE NAME OF THE SHOP. AND, UH, AND THAT IS JUST WAY OVER BUDGET. IT'S ALMOST 15, $15,000. THAT'S FOR THE RESTORING OF THE WINDOWS. AND UH, OF COURSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN OUR BUDGET. SO, AND, UH, I, I'M REALLY REQUESTING FOR THOSE WINDOWS TO, I REALLY WANT THOSE WINDOWS TO BE REPLACED WITH THE ONES THAT WE PROPOSE. WE PROPOSE SOMETHING, UH, SOME ALUMINUM WINDOWS FROM LOWEST THEY WERE, UH, THEY'RE, I MEAN, ONE, THEY LOOK GOOD. SECOND, YOU KNOW, PRICE IS REASONABLE AND TOR IT'S UH, IT'S A DOUBLE PANE GLASS AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I REACHED OUT TO EIGHT OF THE VENDORS THAT, UH, KATIE RECOMMENDED AND, AND I WAS ONLY ABLE TO GET A CALL FROM CHU AND ONE OF THE GUYS SAID THAT, UH, IT WOULD BE REALLY HARD FOR HIM TO CODE. SO, OKAY. I DON'T, I DON'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT, UH, GOING WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF IS NOT WITHIN YOUR BUDGET. IS THAT CORRECT? FOR, FOR, YEAH, THAT'S ONE BIG POINT. ALRIGHT, WELL, BECAUSE THAT ONE, THAT THAT ONE POINT I GUESS, AND THE OTHER ONE IS THAT IT'S GONNA BE REALLY CHALLENGE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT'S GONNA COST. I MEAN, IT CAN BE DONE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A QUESTION OF DOLLARS AND CENTS. SURE. LET'S, UH, MOVE ON TO ITEMS NUMBER FIVE AND SIX. UH, AND, UH, ACTUALLY FOUR, FIVE AND SIX ARE, ARE YOU, ARE YOU ACCEPTING OF THOSE OR ARE THERE ITEMS YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THERE? OKAY, SO ITEM, SO ITEMS TWO AND THREE, I'M PROPOSING THAT WE USE, I'M REALLY PROPOSING THAT WE USE THE ALUMINUM WINDOWS THAT WE PROPOSE TO USE. AND ITEMS FOUR, ITEMS FOUR, UH, WHEN I MET WITH, UH, KATIE ON SITE, UM, I THINK WE, I DID NOT REMOVE THE PLA. THERE IS SOME PLASTIC SIDING AS THE WHITE PLASTIC SIDING THAT YOU GUYS CAN SEE ON THE PHOTOS. UH, I WASN'T, I DIDN'T REMOVE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE WEATHER CONDITIONS AND IT COULD HAVE RAIN AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT CONDITION THE ACTUAL SIDING THAT IS UNDERNEATH THE PLASTIC IS. AND, UH, JUST TO PREVENT WATER DAMAGE AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO WE DIDN'T, WE DID NOT REMOVE, BUT UH, WE'RE [02:00:01] GONNA TRY TO RESTORE THE EXISTING WOOD SIDE AND THAT IS UNDERNEATH THE PLASTIC. OKAY. UM, HOW ABOUT THE, UH, PLACING IN KIND THE PORCH METAL RAILS? SAME WITH THAT ONE. WE, WE CAN, WE CAN REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING SIMILAR. I MEAN, WE GONNA, WE WANNA, WE GONNA MINIMIZE TO THE VERY MINIMUM THE, THE LEVEL THAT ANYTHING THAT WE CHANGE, SO WE CAN REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR EXISTING AND WORST CASE SCENARIO, WE WILL FOLLOW THE HISTORIC DISTRICT GUIDANCE. I THINK WE CAN DO THAT. THIS SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE. SO THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO SEE IF I CAN GET A MOTION FOR THIS. I, I FEEL LIKE THERE ARE, THERE'S A LONG LAUNDRY LIST OF ISSUES HERE AND PERHAPS SOME THINGS THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY REQUIRE A SITE VISIT. UM, WOULD UH, FOLKS BE UP FOR A D R C FOR THIS CASE? UM, I, I THINK YOU ALMOST HAVE TO, YEAH. THERE'S A LOT OF INCONSISTENCIES. YEAH, I, I CONCUR. SO IF, IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION SURE. MR. CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT, THAT UM, UH, ITEM 17 REISH EAST ADDRESS TWO 10 BE MOVED TO D R C. ALRIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEM 17 TO BE MOVED TO D R C. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? CAN WE CLARIFY IN PERSON SITE VISIT? SURE. IN PERSON SITE VISIT. I Y YES SIR. YES. SITE VISIT. HOWEVER, WE CAN ALSO CLARIFY THE WHOLE WINDOWS. THAT'S WHY I, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY NECESSARY FOR THIS CASE SITE VISIT WITH THESE DRAWINGS PRESENT AS WELL. BECAUSE YOU NOTICE, LIKE HERE, THERE'S VERTICAL SITING ON THESE DRAWINGS. YEAH. AND THE PEEL BACK IS NOT VERTICAL WOOD SIDING. SO THERE'S, THERE'S SOME INCONSISTENCIES. SITE VISIT WITH THE DRAWING IS POSSIBLE. SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR, FOR A D R C SITE VISIT WITH THE DRAWINGS. AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A SECOND. UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? UH, SIR? YES SIR. THERE'S, UH, THE SIDING, WE WE'RE PROPOSING TO KEEP THE EXISTING, WE NEED THE, THE PLASTIC BUT NEED NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. AND AGAIN, WE DID NOT REMOVE IT BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER CONDITIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT NOW HERE IN, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE WEATHER IS IN SAN ANTONIO, BUT HERE IN CHIO, TEXAS IS RAINING REALLY, REALLY BAD. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO USE WHATEVER IS EXISTING, JUST RESTORE IT. GREAT, THANK YOU. UM, WHAT THE COMMISSION IS TAKING ACTION ON IS TO DEFER THIS TO A, A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMISSION TO BE ABLE MM-HMM. TO BE ABLE TO MEET OUT ON SITE MM-HMM. . AND SO WE'LL SEE IF THIS MOTION PASSES AND THEN WE CAN MEET YOU OUT ON SITE. UH, YOU'VE GOT INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS PROJECT, I THINK WE WOULD BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO SEE IT FIRSTHAND AND THEN WE CAN HELP YOU FIND A PATHWAY FORWARD. SO WITH THAT, UM, MAY WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, SIR? IS, IS THAT REGARDING THE WINDOWS OR, UH, WHICH ITEMS THAT, THAT'S FOR ALL THE ITEMS. I THINK WE'RE TAKING ACTION ON ALL THE ITEMS AND WHICH, SO I, NOT, NOT JUST THE WINDOWS. I, I THINK, UM, THE MOTION IS TO HAVE A SITE VISIT MM-HMM. TO REVIEW ALL OF THE ITEMS. GOT IT. I I ALREADY MET WITH KATIE ON SITE. THAT'S RIGHT. AND KATIE WILL PROBABLY JOIN US FOR THAT AS WELL. SHE'LL BE THE, THE MC FOR US OUT ON SITE. SO IF WE MAY HAVE A ROLL CALL FOR THE MOTION, PLEASE. GIBBS. AYE IT ABSENT? AYE. VELASQUEZ. AYE. OLA. AYE. MASUKA. AYE. CARPENTER AYE GROUP. AYE. ZER AYE. LA AYE. MOTION PASSES. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CHECKING BACK ITEMS 13 AND 16. ANY APPLICANTS AVAILABLE FOR THOSE? OKAY, LET'S MOVE AHEAD TO ITEM 18 THEN PLEASE. UH, AND QUICK LAST QUESTION IS, IS, IS KATIE GOING TO BE REACHING BACK TO ME? YES, SHE'LL SCHEDULE THE MEETING WITH YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOU ATTENDING TODAY'S COMMISSION HEARING. THANK YOU. UH, AGENDA [18. Address/Description: 240 W LULLWOOD AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-538 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Arnold Flather Request: Parking pad installation City Council Dist.: 1] ITEM NUMBER 18 H D R C CASE 2021 DASH 5 32 40 WEST ELLWOOD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE MULCH WITH CONCRETE OR DECOMPOSED GRANITE IN AN AREA ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED [02:05:01] ON FINDING B IF THE H D R C IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE THE PARKING PAD, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS THAT THE AREA IS NO LARGER THAN 144 SQUARE FEET TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE U D C AND FEATURE CRUSH GRANITE TO AID IN WATER RUNOFF AND THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A DETAILED PARKING PLAN TO STAFF FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO THE C O A BEING ISSUED. AND WE DO HAVE THE, UM, APPLICANTS IN PERSON, UM, ARNOLD AND PAM LATHER SO THAT THEY CAN, YOU GUYS CAN PAM LATHER. UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OH, HI. OH, I'M PAM PLATTER AND IT'S TWO 40 WESTWOOD, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. THANK YOU. HE, I'M GONNA LET HIM TALK . THANK YOU. YEAH, MY NAME'S ARNOLD PLATTER. I'M ONE OF THE OWNERS OF TWO 40 WESTWOOD. WE, UH, PROPOSING TO MAKE THE PARKING LOT, UH, OR INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE PARKING LOT, SO IT'S A SAFE, UH, LOCATION. ON, ON THE PARKING THERE. I'VE MADE SOME POINTS HERE. I HAVE SOME FURTHER PICTURES OF THE, UH, GIVE THE, DO I, HOW DO I DEAL WITH THE PICTURES I TOOK? SOME'S NOT AWAY FOR ME TO, TO SHOW 'EM ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU GOT OH, YOU HAVE IT. I'VE GOT ALL THE PICTURES HERE IN THE CASE FILE. OKAY. THIS, THIS PICTURE HERE, PHOTOGRAPH HERE SHOWS THE, UH, AREA THAT IS OF CONCERN. YOU SEE THERE'S A DOUBLE GARAGE THERE, WHICH THAT LEFT YES. YEAH. TO THE LEFT, WHICH, UH, IS AN OPERATIVE DOOR NEXT TO IT. THERE'S A SINGLE GARAGE, WHICH IS INOPERATIVE. IT'S ACTUALLY DEVELOPED TO A LITTLE COED BEHIND THAT AREA. SO THIS GARAGE IS NOT USABLE, PERIOD. AND THE AREA THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DEVELOP SO THAT WE HAVE A, A VIABLE PARKING LOT WOULD BE THE AREA THERE TO THE RIGHT, JUST IN FRONT OF THAT TREE. YOU SEE, WE NOW THERE IT IS THE LITTLE, UH, GARDEN AREA THERE. I MADE SOME POINTS AND TO PRESENT OUR CASE AND TO, TO, UH, SOLIDIFY WHY WE WANT TO DO THIS. UM, THE CURB, AS YOU CAN SEE IS PRESENTLY, I THINK IT'S CALLED PLANE DOWN. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE CURVE. AND AS I MENTIONED, THE SMALL GARAGE DOOR IS NOT OPERABLE. UH, YOU CANNOT PARK IN FRONT OF THAT LITTLE GARAGE, UH, PARALLEL TO THE, TO THE UH, UH, HOUSE OR THE BUILDING BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN THE CAR WOULD THEN BE IN FRONT OF THE DOUBLE CAR GARAGE. AND THAT'S REALLY NOT SUITABLE. AND AS, I DUNNO IF YOU HAD THIS MR, LOCATED THIS PICTURE, MR. FLATTER, JUST MAKE SURE YOU'RE SPEAKING DIRECTLY INTO THE MIC. OH, I'M SORRY. OTHERWISE THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO HEAR YOU ON THE DO YOU ON THE OTHER SIDE? I DON'T HAVE THAT. AND WE'LL JUST, WE WILL HAND OUT THE, THE PHOTOS SO THE COMMISSIONERS CAN VIEW THEM. IS THAT BETTER, MR. CHAIR? YES. JUST IN THE, IN THE FIGURING ALL THIS, I IT DOES IT APPEAR THAT THIS WOULD BE IN OUR JURISDICTION? I'M WONDERING WHY THIS IS COMING BEFORE US. IF IT WAS LANDSCAPE, IT WOULD BE IN OUR JURISDICTION. IT'S HARD BUT IT'S HARDSCAPE. YEAH. IT'S, IT IS, IT'S HARDSCAPE IS PART OF THE LANDSCAPE. YEAH. BUT, BUT HARDSCAPE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, RIGHT? SO WE ACTUALLY DON'T REVIEW THE PURPOSE. YEAH. PURPOSE IS DEFINED BY ZONING. SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ARE THE AESTHETICS OF, OF THIS LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION. BUT SO WHETHER THERE'S A CAR ON IT OR NOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. ONLY TO THE DEGREE THAT, UM, UNDER THE BUILDING CODE, IF HARDSCAPE IS ALLOWED HERE, THEN PARKING WOULD BE ALLOWED. BUT THE COMMISSION AND O H P STAFF DOESN'T REGULATE WHERE A CAR DOES OR DOES NOT PARK ON A PROPERTY. RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. BUT BUT IF THERE'S A DRIVEWAY, THEN IT'S DRIVEWAY. BUT IF THERE'S NOT A DRIVEWAY, HOW CAN WE HEAR A CASE THAT PROPOSES A DRIVEWAY USE WHERE, WHERE IT'S NOT A DRIVEWAY? WELL THIS IS THE SAME AS AS CASES THAT PROPOSE A NEW WALK THROUGH A FRONT YARD PER SE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, THERE'S A MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE. THAT'S WHY, WHY WE'RE REVIEWING IT. OKAY. I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND MR. CHAIR BECAUSE IT'S A SIDEWALK. THERE'S A SIDEWALK. THE APPROACHES ARE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE [02:10:01] SIDEWALK. SO IF IT'S A HARDSCAPE THEN IT MAKES SENSE. BUT IF IT'S HARDSCAPE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARKING, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD GO TO ZONING BEFORE IT WOULD COME TO US. OR IT WOULD BE BECAUSE, BECAUSE JUST THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T NEED A CURB CUT DOESN'T MAKE IT A PARKING SPACE. IT'S JUST A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. THERE'S SOME CONFUSION HERE. IF IT'S A PARKING PAD, THEN IT'S OUR PURVIEW BECAUSE WE DON'T ACCEPT MORE THAN 10 FEET DRIVEWAYS. THAT ALSO MEANS 10 FEET WIDE PARKING AREA IN FRONT FRONT OF A GARAGE. RIGHT, RIGHT. BUT WOULD WE HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO CALL SOMETHING A DRIVEWAY THAT'S NOT A DRIVEWAY? WELL THE APPLICANT IS APPLYING AS CREATING MORE PARKING, BUT IT'S GOTTA PARK OVER A SIDEWALK. YES. AND MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN ADDRESS THAT THEN. SO THAT, THAT IS CITY ORDINANCE. YOU CANNOT BLOCK THE SIDEWALK WITH A VEHICLE. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO KIND OF PULL IN FROM THE SIDE. WHAT WE HAVE PURVIEW OVER IS THE ADDITION OF HARDSCAPE. AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S CONCERN RELATED TO PARKING BECAUSE OF THAT INTRODUCTION OF HARDSCAPE. BUT WHERE THE VEHICLE PARKS ON THE PROPERTY AND HOW OFTEN IT'S HANGING OVER THE SIDEWALK IS VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE. OKAY. WELL I I APPRECIATE THAT 'CAUSE IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN HOW TO MAKE A DECISION. SO I, I APPRECIATE IT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. , PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS AS WELL IS BECAUSE IN WHERE THE GARAGE DOORS ARE, IT MAKES IT VERY HARD TO PUT A CAR THERE WITHOUT BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK. AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM MOVING UP TO THE TOP OF THE HOUSE IN THAT IF YOU GO IN THAT AREA WHERE THE LANDSCAPING IS, IT GOES BACK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FROM THE HOUSE BECAUSE IN ORDER TO PARK A CAR AND I HAVE A SMALL CAR IN FRONT OF THERE, YOU PRETTY MUCH HAVE TO PARK SIDEWAYS. SO NOW YOU'VE LOST THE OTHER PARKING AREA AS WELL. AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS, AND ESPECIALLY SINCE IT WAS ALREADY PLANNED AND WE DIDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT, THAT THAT WAS ANOTHER VALID REASON. THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE PARKING ON THE STREET, THE ROADS ARE SO NARROW THAT WE, THERE'S SO MANY ACCIDENTS THAT HAPPEN OVER THERE AND WE'VE HAD PEOPLE THAT HAVE RUN INTO CARS AND STUFF BECAUSE IT'S JUST TOO NARROW AND IT OBSTRUCTS THE SITE. AND SO I EVEN WENT TO SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORS, I STOPPED AT NINE THAT HAD ALL AGREED THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A GREAT IDEA THAT WE DO THIS FOR ONE REASON TO KEEP THE CARS OUT OF THE STREET. AND SO I DON'T KNOW FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH. THE NEIGHBORS ARE NOT OBJECTING TO THIS EITHER. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, ARNOLD? NO, I THINK THAT COVERS THE POINTS. IS THAT, YES, I WAS MENTIONING YOU BASICALLY HAVE TO PART THE CAR HORIZONTAL OR PARALLEL TO THE BUILDING. OTHERWISE, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THAT PICTURE I SENT AROUND, YOU'D BE OVERLAPPING. IF YOU PARKED AT 90 DEGREES TO THE BUILDING, YOU WOULD BE OVERLAPPING THE CURB. AND THAT'S JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE AS WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO, YOU CAN SEE THAT AREA OF CONCRETE IN FRONT OF THAT SINGLE GARAGE. HE'S ABOUT, I THINK HE'S ABOUT 11 BY 11. WE WANT TO TAKE AN AREA AGAIN, ABOUT 11 BY 11 OF THAT, UH, MULCHED AREA AND, AND PAVE IT SO IT, IT IS ACCEPTABLE AND YOU CAN PARK A CAR IN IT. SO, SO THAT NOW WE HAVE 20 BY 10, WHICH IS SUITABLE TO PARK A CAR PARALLEL TO, TO THE BUILDING. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE FATE OF THE TREE THAT'S IN THAT MULCH MULCHED AREA RIGHT NOW? WOULD THAT BE CUT DOWN TO ACCOMMODATE THIS? OH, SORRY, GO AHEAD. WE CAN DO WHATEVER Y'ALL WANT. I MEAN, THE TREE DOESN'T HAVE TO COME DOWN SO YOU KNOW, IF Y'ALL DIDN'T WANT THE TREE TO COME DOWN. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME DOWN. AND WE'RE NOT LIKE SPECIFIC TO EITHER CONCRETE OR DECOMPOSE GRANITE, WHATEVER YOU GUYS RECOMMEND. IT'S JUST TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO GET MORE ACCESS SO THAT WE DO NOT BLOCK A SIDEWALK, WE DO NOT PARK IN THE STREET AND GET THE CARS HIT AND ARE ABLE TO KIND OF MAKE IT THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. THANK YOU. UH, THIS IS COMMISSIONER SABINO. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE EXISTING CONCRETE BETWEEN THOSE TWO PARKING AREAS, WHAT IS THAT, WHAT IS THAT WIDTH OF THE ENTIRE CONCRETE PARKING? YEAH. THE, THE, UH, CONCRETE WIDTH IN FRONT OF THE SMALL GARAGE IS ABOUT, UH, 10 OR 11 FOOT. UH, AND IN FRONT OF THE, THE, THE BIG DOUBLE GARAGE, I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT 19 FOOT. OKAY. SO WE'RE [02:15:01] TALKING 30 FOOT OR SO TOTAL, TOTAL WIDTH. OKAY. OR LENGTH, I WOULD SAY. DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED THAT ENTIRE 15 FEET OF MULCHED AREA IN ORDER TO PARK ANOTHER CAR PARALLEL TO THE BUILDING? OR COULD YOU PERHAPS USE FIVE OR SEVEN FEET AND MAINTAIN SOME OF THAT AREA AS PLANTING PERMEABLE COVERAGE? YEAH, WE COULD CERTAINLY GET A BUY WITH A LITTLE BIT LESS, BUT BEAR IN MIND, PRESENTLY WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT 11 FEET. THAT'S NOT REALLY SUITABLE TO PARK A CAR PARALLEL TO THE BUILDING THERE. ANOTHER SEVEN FOOT WOULD BE PROBABLY THE MINIMUM, BUT, UH, AND IT COULD CERTAINLY BE LANDSCAPE THEN THE LAST COUPLE OF THREE FEET WITH NO PROBLEM. UM, BECAUSE IT SHOWS ON ONE OF THESE DRAWINGS THAT YOU HAVE 15 FEET. THAT IS CORRECT. THEN I DID GET THIS RECOMMENDATION FIRST GO ROUND. IT SAID 144 FEET, SO I THOUGHT I REDUCED IT ACCORDINGLY TO, TO MAKE IT LESS THAN 144 FEET TO OKAY. FALLING LINES WITH THE GUIDELINES. OKAY. 'CAUSE I DO THINK THE, THE CONCERN HERE COULD VERY WELL BE SO MUCH MORE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, EVEN IF IT IS GRAVEL. AND OF COURSE MAINTAINING THE TREE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD REALLY WANT TO SEE. SURE. WE CAN MAINTAIN THE TREE. UH, UH, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG IN KEEPING THE TREE THERE AND WE CAN CERTAINLY CUT IT BACK. HENCE THE REASON WHY I CUT IT BACK TO 11 FEET AS FROM 15 FEET INITIALLY TO BRING IT DOWN TO LESS THAN 144 SQUARE FEET. MM-HMM. . AND ALSO, ONE LAST QUESTION. HAVE YOU MET WITH ANYBODY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND THEIR HISTORIC REVIEW GROUP? UH, ISN'T THAT KATIE, IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN KATIE AND THEM? NO, YOU'RE TALKING THE MONTE VISTA? YES, SIR. OH NO, WE HAVE NOT. UH, WE USED TO ATTEND THE MEETINGS REGULARLY, BUT THEY'VE ALL BEEN PRETTY WELL POSTPONED 'CAUSE OF COVID. I THINK IT'S DONE BY ZOOM, IS IT NOW? YEAH. BUT THAT'S ALSO WHY I WENT TO THE NEIGHBORS, ESPECIALLY ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT WOULD BE IN THAT AREA. MM-HMM. . MM-HMM. THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT 'CAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE GONNA BE SEEING IT, SO WITHIN THAT AREA AND GOT SIGNATURES AND THEIR ADDRESSES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA SEE THIS, BUT IT'S OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF GOOD NEIGHBORS. UM, THE REASON WHY I SUGGEST THAT IS BECAUSE THEY DO REVIEW AND LOOK AT A LOT OF THE WORK GOING ON IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND THEY COULD HAVE SOME, UH, VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE FOLKS THERE WHO CAN, UM, PROVIDE SUGGESTIONS AND, UM, OTHER SOLUTIONS IN ADDITION TO COMING TO THE COMMISSION. AND THAT IS, THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THE, JUST THE GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, MEETINGS THAT THEY HAVE A STANDING COMMITTEE. UH, PAUL KINISON IS THE, IS THE CHAIRMAN, I BELIEVE STILL. AND SO HE WOULD BE THE ONE TO HELP, UH, YOU KNOW, ASSIST YOU AT THAT AS WELL. MI, MR. CHAIR? YES. UH, I JUST, JUST WANT TO, UH, BE CLEAR. I, I'M LOOKING AT THE REQUEST. THE WAY THEY REQUEST IS, IS, UM, IS WRITTEN, I WOULD THINK IS WHAT WE WOULD BE MAIN, UH, FRAMING OUR, OUR CONSIDERATION IN THAT. WE, I I DON'T THINK IT'S PROPER THAT WE CAN HEAR THE REQUEST WITH THE, WITH AN UNDERSTOOD OUTCOME THAT IT'S TO ACCOMMODATE A VEHICLE. WE CAN HEAR IT. I WOULD, I, I UNDERSTAND AS THE REPLACEMENT OF MULCH WITH DECOMPOSED GRANITE, BUT WE HAVE NO PLACE OR NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR IT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ACCOMMODATING A VEHICLE. UM, AND I THINK THAT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH. IT'S SIMPLE ENOUGH TO JUST LOOK AT IT THAT WAY AND HOW, HOWEVER THEY'RE GONNA USE IT IS, IS THEIR SITUATION. BECAUSE ON ANOTHER LEVEL, SAY THEY CAME AND ASKED FOR A PLANT BED, YOU COULDN'T PARK A CAR ON A PLANT BED. RIGHT? NOT THAT ANYBODY'S SAYING THAT, BUT IF WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT IT THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN, THEN IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS DECOMPOSED GRANITE AND NOT ENTER INTO THE RECORD THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING THIS FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARKING IN A VEHICLE. THAT'S, FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM COREY, ANYWAY, THAT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. I CAN, AND I DON'T, I I CAN'T, I CAN'T SEE MAKING A DECISION THAT THE DECISION THAT I WOULD BE MAKING WOULD BE FOR THE ACCOMMODATING OF A VEHICLE THAT I, I JUST DON'T SEE THAT AS APPROPRIATE. I THOUGHT WE HAD ON THE AGENDA FOR A NEW PARKING PAD. YOU DO. SO THE ADDITION OF THE PARKING PAD SLASH HARDSCAPE REQUIRES A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. UM, AND IN THAT IS THE CONCERN OF HAVING THAT AMOUNT OF UNINTERRUPTED HARDSCAPE SLASH DRIVEWAY [02:20:01] SPACE, WHICH IS NOT TYPICAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ IS CORRECT. WE'RE NOT REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE DECIDING WHERE CARS CAN AND CAN'T GO. HOWEVER, LIKE I UNDERSTAND THERE'D BE A CONCERN BECAUSE UNDER THE CODE, A CAR CANNOT PARK AT A FLOWERBED, BUT IT CAN PARK ANYWHERE THERE'S HARDSCAPE. AND SO THAT IS POTENTIALLY A RESULT OF A DECISION ABOUT HARDSCAPE. OKAY. BUT CAN A CAR PARK, OKAY, HOW DOES A CAR GET IN THERE FOLLOWING THE U D C? NOT, NOT, NOT BY YOU LOOKING AT THAT AND FIGURING OUT HOW YOU'D GET A CAR IN THERE BY CREATING MORE CONCRETE AND MORE HARDSCAPE SPACE. NO, WELL, SEE, THAT'S NOT A, THAT'S, THAT'S, I CAN MAKE A DECISION BASED ON, YOU'RE ASKING ME TO CONSIDER IT BASED ON WHAT COMMISSIONER OVER HERE SAID, THAT THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION. I MEAN, I MEAN, DON'T WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME STANDARD OF UNDERSTANDING HOW A CAR GETS IN THERE? BECAUSE LOOK, IF SOMEBODY CAME AND DID THE SAME, WE'VE HAD PROJECTS JUST LIKE THIS BEFORE. WE'VE BEEN REALLY HARD ON 'EM, AND ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS PUT A LITTLE FENCE TO KEEP THEIR DOG IN. THIS IS VERY SIMILAR IN THAT, THAT THERE'S A PARTICULAR, UH, EXPECTATION ON THE PART OF THE PLAN, THE SITE PLAN, THE U D C REQUIREMENTS OF HOW A CAR WOULD GET IN THERE. RIGHT? NOW, THEY'RE NOT, THAT, THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE NECESSARILY THAT THEY HAVE TO BRING UP. IF IT'S ABOUT THE CHANGING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF MULCH VERSUS A HARDSCAPE AND WHATEVER, THEY'RE GONNA, THEY, THEY COULD WELD THERE IF THEY WANT TO FOR ALL, FOR ALL I CARE. BUT, BUT IN TERMS OF IT BEING A FACTOR IN THE DECISION BETWEEN MULCH OR GRANITE, IT'S IRRELEVANT. AND, AND, AND I THINK IT, MR. MR QUE, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES HERE, THE APPLICANT'S IS ALSO EVIDENCE THAT THE COMMISSION CAN CONSIDER. OKAY. BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE UNDERSTAND, RIGHT, THAT THERE'S A REQUEST BEFORE US THAT SAYS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO REPLACE MULCH WITH CONCRETE OR DECOMPOSE GRANITE IN AN AREA ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY, ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY. INFERS SOMETHING. JUST BE CLEAR THAT, THAT I I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE, UH, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ, THERE'S A PLAN FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEY'RE STATING IT. THERE'S MORE THAN THAT. THERE'S ALSO DRAWINGS AND PLANS. I FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT'S ACTUALLY AGREEING WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR STAFF. I DON'T EVEN SEE AN ISSUE HERE. THE APPLICANT IS, IS ACTUALLY ACCEPTING THAT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. WELL, YEAH, BUT I MEAN, WITH FAIR ALL FAIRNESS APART, I'M FINE WITH THAT COMMISSIONER GROUP, BUT LET'S JUST REMEMBER WHEN ANYBODY COMES BEFORE THIS COMMISSION ASKING FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THAT YOUR OPINION IS GONNA BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, BECAUSE THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO OTHER THINGS. AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DEEPER THAN SOME OF THE SIMPLE THINGS THAT PEOPLE ASK FOR, BUT FOR WHATEVER REASONS IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE, WE NEED TO MOVE ON. SO YES, I, I APPRECIATE THE NUANCES OF THIS, BUT YOU KNOW, THE BOTH U D C AND THE GUIDELINES DO SPEAK TO PARAMETERS FOR THINGS LIKE DRIVEWAYS AND PATHWAYS. AND EVEN THOUGH THOSE ARE FUNCTIONS, THEY ARE STILL, THEY'RE AESTHETIC CONCERNS THAT ARE COVERED BY THE GUIDELINES. AND I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT HERE IS NOT THE FUNCTION, BUT WHAT ARE THE AESTHETIC CONCERNS? WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS TO THIS? RATHER THAN PICKING KNITS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER, WHETHER THIS IS WITHIN OUR PURVIEW OR NOT. 'CAUSE I DON'T, I THINK CLEARLY IT IS 'CAUSE IT IMPACTS THE AESTHETICS OF THIS, UH, SIDE OF THE HOUSE. BUT AS, AS LONG AS WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE CODIFYING TO A CERTAIN EXTENT OF A PARALLEL PARKING ON THE SITE, OR A STRAIGHT IN PARKING ON THE SITE WHERE A DRIVEWAY DOES NOT EXIST, JUST SO LONG AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT, I'LL, I'LL RE REMIND ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS THAT EVERY CASE IS SO UNIQUE THAT THERE REALLY ISN'T THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRECEDENT AND YOUR DECISIONS ARE NOT GONNA BE HELD AGAINST YOU FOR ANOTHER CASE THAT HAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, UM, YOU KNOW, PARAMETERS TO IT. SO, I, I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE ON. SO IN THE CASE OF, IN THE CALL OF EFFICIENCY HERE, SO UNLESS THERE IS A MORE SUBSTANTIVE DIALOGUE, I'M GONNA CALL FOR A, A MOTION PLEASE. MR. VICE-CHAIR. SINCE THE APPLICANTS IS ACCEPTING, UH, STAFF'S PROPOSED, UM, RECOMMENDATION OF STIPULATION, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR KATIE. CAN YOU PUT THAT ON THE SCREEN PLEASE? I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A SECOND. MAY WE HAVE ROLL CALL PLEASE? JUST A CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION. WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN? SO IT'S, UH, RECOMMEND TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION ONE AND TWO. GREAT. THANK YOU. UH, PPS. AYE. VICIOUS IS ABSENT. SINO AYE. [02:25:01] QUEZ. EPSTEIN. OLA. AYE. MASUKA. AYE. GRO, I MEAN, CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP. AYE. BOWMAN'S ABSENT, BUT NAYYY. AYE. MOTION PASSES. OH. UM, DID YOU WANT TO VOTE COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ? OR YOU'RE ABSTAINING? NO, I, I'M, I'M, I'M ABSTAINING, BUT I DO WANT TO JUST BE VERY CLEAR THAT THE ONLY REASON IS 'CAUSE I, I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S IN OUR JURISDICTION. THAT THAT'S WHY I'M ABSTAINING. THE MOTION PASSES. I'M HERE Y'ALL'S PICTURES. OH, THANK YOU. NICE CAMERA BY THE WAY, . THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING TODAY'S HEARING. THANK YOU. IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY GIVE THOSE TO KATIE, WE'LL NEED TO KEEP THEM FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU. WAS THERE NO COMMENTS FROM MONTE VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD? NO. SO WHILE THOSE ARE BEING PASSED OFF, ANY LUCK ON ITEM NUMBER 13 OR 16? NO CHANGES FROM WHAT I CAN SEE. ALRIGHT, SO AT THE END, WHAT WE MAY DO IS PERHAPS ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UM, DEFER THOSE YEAH. POSTPONE DECISION ON THAT INTO A FUTURE HEARING. ITEM NUMBER SIX. UH, SORRY. ITEM NUMBER [19. Address/Description: 401 SHOOK AVE HDRC Case No.: 2021-540 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Lewis McNeel Request: Window and door replacement City Council Dist.: 1] 19 4 0 1 SHOOK AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER 19 H D R C CASE 2021 DASH 5 4 0 4 0 1 SHOOK. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE THREE EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE WITH NEW ALUMINUM CLA WOOD WINDOWS. AND TO REPLACE FOUR EXISTING WOOD EXTERIOR DOORS WITH WOOD AND GLASS DOORS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO. THE DOOR REPLACEMENT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO BASED ON FINDING F WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE FRONT DOOR BE RETAINED AND THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT DOORS ABOVE AND BENEATH THE PORT COSHA BE WOOD AND FEATURE A PANELED APPEARANCE TO BE IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING APPEARANCE. A FINAL DOOR SPECIFICATION AND DESIGN WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED TO STAFF PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A C O A STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE. WINDOW REPLACEMENT. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE BASED ON FINDINGS B THROUGH E. THE HISTORIC DI DESIGN GUIDELINES ALWAYS RECOMMEND THAT THE REPAIR OF HISTORIC AGE WINDOWS BE PRIORITIZED OVER REPLACEMENT. INDIVIDUAL SASHES THAT ARE SEVERELY DETERIORATED OR DAMAGED MAY BE REPLACED WITHIN KIND WOOD SASHES OF TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION METHODS. IF THE H D R C IS COMPELLED TO APPROVE WINDOW REPLACEMENT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALLS FULLY WOOD WINDOWS THAT MEET STAFF STANDARD WINDOW STIPULATIONS AND SUBMITS UPDATED SPECIFICATIONS TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE WINDOW SHOULD FEATURE AN INSET OF TWO INCHES WITHIN, WITHIN FACADES AND SHOULD FEATURE PROFILES THAT ARE FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. MEETING. RAILS MUST BE NO TALLER THAN 1.25 INCHES IN, IN STYLES NO WIDER THAN TWO, UM, 2.25 INCHES. WHITE MANUFACTURER'S COLOR IS NOT ALLOWED. AND COLOR SELECTION MUST BE PRESENT PRESENTED TO STAFF. THERE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF TWO INCHES IN DEPTH BETWEEN THE FRONT FACE OF THE WINDOW TRIM AND THE FRONT FACE OF THE TOP WINDOW SASH. THIS MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED BY RECESSING THE WINDOWS SUFFICIENTLY WITHIN THE OPENING OR WITH THE INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL WINDOW TRIM. TO ADD THICKNESS WINDOW TRIM MUST FEATURE TRADITIONAL DIMENSIONS AND ARCHITECTURALLY APPROPRIATE SILL DETAIL. WINDOW TRACK COMPONENTS MUST BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE WINDOW TRIM OR CONCEALED BY A WOOD WINDOW SCREEN SET WITHIN THE OPENING, AND THAT THE EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS ARE SALVAGE AND SORT ON SITE FOR FUTURE USE OR DONATED TO A LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL SALVAGE STORE. AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS, UM, ON VIRTUAL, UM, LOUIS MCNEIL. THANK YOU. MR. MCNEAL. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT? SURE. THANK YOU FOR, UM, TAKING THE TIME TO BE HERE, AND THANKS FOR HEARING THIS CASE. UM, I GUESS TWO THINGS THAT THE DOOR THING IS EASY. WE'RE HAPPY TO, UM, KEEP THE FRONT DOOR. UM, AND THEN WE WANTED TO REPLACE, UH, WITH THE PRODUCT THAT WE HAD SPECIFIED. UM, IT'S A HIGH QUALITY WOULD, UH, DOOR A PRODUCT BY MARVIN THAT MATCHES, UM, THE EXTERIOR SCREEN LOOK. SO THAT'S THE FRONT DOOR. THAT'S OKAY. THIS IS THE DOORS THAT WE WOULD BE, UH, CONTEMPLATING REPLACING. UH, THE REASON WE WANNA REPLACE THEM IS THEY DON'T FIT WELL. THERE'S HIGH PROBABILITY THEY'RE NOT ORIGINAL TO THE HOUSE, GIVEN THAT, UM, THESE, ALL OF THE DOORS, INCLUDING THESE UPPER BALCONY DOORS, HAVE WINDOW PEEP HOLES [02:30:01] IN THEM AS IF THEY WERE SALVAGED FROM ANOTHER LOCATION. UH, SO THEY'RE NOT SERVING THE PURPOSE OF A FRONT DOOR. THE SCREEN DOOR IMAGE YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS THE LOOK THAT WE, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THESE ORIGINAL DOORS IN THE HOUSE WERE, WE WANTED TO GO WITH WHATEVER CUES WE COULD. UH, SO THE SCREEN DOOR LOOK IS THE APPEARANCE OF THE NOR THE DOOR THAT WE WANT TO PROPOSE BEHIND THE SCREEN DOOR, WHERE IT'D BE A BIG GLASS PANE BEHIND THE SCREEN DOOR. SO THE PRODUCT WE SUBMITTED, UM, IS THAT, AND I GUESS WE'D LIKE TO KNOW IF THAT IS JUST ACCEPTABLE TO, TO GO WITH THAT PRODUCT FOR THOSE REASONS. UM, TRYING FOR, FOR ONE GLASS, UH, DOUBLE PANE GLASS TO BRING ENERGY EFFICIENT DAYLIGHT INTO THE ROOMS AND TO KIND OF NOT DETRACT FROM THE CLEAN LOOK OF THE SCREEN, UH, SCREEN DOOR APPEARANCE. SO THAT'S THE DOOR SITUATION. I CAN COMMENT ON THE WINDOWS, BUT DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT THE DOORS FIRST? GO AHEAD AND, AND DISCUSS YOUR POSITION ON THE WINDOWS SINCE I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU ON THE DOORS. OKAY. SO THE WINDOWS ARE, THERE'S LIKE A THREE-PRONGED PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE. UM, AND IT'S A THERMAL AND, UH, A THERMAL, A MOISTURE AND AN ACOUSTIC ISSUE. AND ABOVE ALL, IT'S AN ACOUSTIC ISSUE. UM, THE DIAGRAM YOU'RE SEEING HERE, UM, SEEING HERE, UM, IS THE, THE BACK OF THE HOUSE IS TO THE LEFT. UH, IT'S A CORNER LOT, BUT THE BOTTOM SCREEN, BOTTOM SIDE IS HEAVILY SCREENED FROM WITH VEGETATION AS WELL. WE'RE LOOKING TO REPLACE THREE WINDOWS IN OUR KIDS' BEDROOM THAT ARE, TWO OF 'EM ARE ON THE VERY BACK. ONE OF 'EM IS THE CORNER, UH, BACK CORNER FRONTING THE SIDE YARD. NONE OF THEM ARE VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC WAY. UM, AND THE REASON WE'RE TRYING TO REPLACE THESE THREE WINDOWS IS, UH, ACOUSTICS. OUR KIDS, UH, YOUNG KIDS ARE IN THAT BEDROOM, UH, RIGHT NEXT TO, UH, A NEW HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT RIGHT ON, YOU KNOW, VERY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. UH, JUST TO THE LEFT OF US. THERE'S PROBABLY, YEAH, SO THE IMAGE THERE, IT'S HARD TO SEE, BUT THERE'S A NEW HOUSE. AND THE UPPER FEATURE OF THIS HOUSE, THE UPPER STORY, HAS A PARTY DECK. UM, AND THERE ARE, I WOULD NOT SAY LOUD NEIGHBORS, BUT THEY HAVE ORDINARY NOISES. UM, BUT THE FACT THAT THE ORDINARY NOISES ARE COMING AND IT'S BARKING DOGS AND ANY ORDINARY VOICE, UH, CARRIES FROM THAT DECK STRAIGHT INTO OUR KIDS' BEDROOM THROUGH SINGLE PANE GLASS WINDOWS. SO OUR KIDS ARE WOKEN UP AT NIGHT. UM, WE HEAR EVERYTHING, EVEN IF WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR EVERYTHING FROM ORDINARY VOLUME CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING NEXT DOOR. UH, THIS HOUSE POPPED UP NEW CONSTRUCTION, UH, A COUPLE YEARS AGO. WE'VE BEEN IN THE HOUSE. OUR HOUSE HAS BEEN IN THIS LOCATION FOR A WHILE. UH, SO WE, THERE, SO THAT'S THE ACOUSTIC ISSUE, AND THAT'S WHY WE PROPOSE A PRODUCT THAT WE DID, WHICH IS DOUBLE PANE GLASS, NEW WINDOWS, DOUBLE PANE GLASS, ANOTHER MARVIN HIGH QUALITY, HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE, UH, WOOD WINDOW PRODUCTS. UM, AND WE WOULD, WE'RE COMMITTING TO FOLLOWING ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO RECESS AND MATCH, UM, PROFILES AND TRIM AND GET A COMPLETELY, UH, A PERFECTLY HISTORIC LOOK FROM THE EXTERIOR AT END OF THE INTERIOR, HOPEFULLY, UH, AT THE END OF THE DAY. SO THE REQUEST WE HAVE IS TO USE THE WINDOW PRODUCT AS SUBMITTED. UM, AND THAT'S A DOUBLE PANE WINDOW. IT'S, UH, IT WOULD HAVE AN IDENTICAL APPEARANCE FROM THE EXTERIOR TO WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. AND ALL THE TRIM RECESS DETAILS WOULD BE IDENTICAL. AND THEN THE MOISTURE ISSUE THAT, UH, SO HERE'S THAT PRODUCT. UM, THE, UH, WE WOULD BE DOING EXACTLY THE DOUBLE HUNG CONDITION THAT'S IN OUR HOUSE. NOT WITH THE MOUNTAIN, BUT JUST PLAIN LIGHTS ABOVE AND BELOW, UM, THE MOISTURE ISSUE. THE REASON WHY WE SPECIFIED A CLAD WINDOW PRODUCT ONLY AT THESE LOCATE AT THE LOCATION OF THIS ROOM IS BECAUSE IN ONE OF THOSE OTHER IMAGES, IF YOU SCROLL THROUGH, THERE IS AN ADJACENT LOW ROOF TO OUR, LIKE BELOW, RIGHT AT THE SILL LINE. WE'LL SEE IT IN JUST A SECOND THAT, SO TWO OF THESE WINDOWS HAVE A, UH, A LOW ROOF RIGHT BELOW THEM, AND A HIGH ROOF ABOVE DUMPING RAINWATER ON THAT LOW ROOF AND SPLASHING ONTO THESE WINDOWS. THESE TWO WINDOWS OF ALL WINDOWS IN OUR HOUSE ARE, UH, ROTTING AWAY AT A HIGHER RATE. AND IT'S BECAUSE THERE'S A, A HEAVY AMOUNT OF SPLASHBACK, UM, FROM AN AS DESIGNED HISTORIC CONDITION OF RAINWATER DUMPING FROM A HIGH ROOF TO THIS LOW ROOF AND SPLASHING ONTO A SILL HEIGHT THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATELY HIGH ENOUGH AWAY FROM THIS ROOF. SO YOU CAN SEE THE, THE WORST OF THE RAIN DAMAGE RIGHT HERE. SO A CLAD WINDOW THAT WOULD BE, UH, SAME COLOR AS THE OTHER WINDOWS, UH, AND LOOKING IDENTICAL, SAME PROFILE AND EVERYTHING IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION FOR, UM, UH, FOR THIS THERMAL, SORRY FOR THIS MOISTURE CONDITION. [02:35:01] SO THAT'S THE BIG STORY. I'D HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES, MR. CHER, UH, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD? NO. OKAY. UM, I JUST WANNA, I THINK ON THE WINDOWS, THE APPLICANT'S MAKING A FAIRLY GOOD CASE AND THAT'S WHY WE AS MENTIONED BEFORE, WE DO CASE BY CASE. SO, UM, I'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT, BUT I'LL BE HAPPY TO ALSO HEAR WHAT OTHER, UH, COMMISSIONERS SAY ON THE DOOR. I'M NOT SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE. STAFF IS ACTUALLY, UM, APPROVING THE, BUT WITH A STIPULATION, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S, THAT STIPULATION IS IN LINE WITH THE FULL GLASS DOOR. MAYBE EITHER STAFF CLARIFY OR THE APPLICANT. AND I KNOW IT DOES APPLY THAT TO THE FRONT DOOR. 'CAUSE YOU WANT A FULL GLASS DOOR IN THE FRONT. CORRECT. MR. MCNEIL, WE, WE, UH, PROPOSED A FULL GLASS DOOR ON THE FRONT, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP THE EXISTING FRONT DOOR. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ORIGINAL, BUT WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT ORIGINAL OR WITH THAT FRONT DOOR OR THE, THE APPEARANCE, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT RECOMMENDING THAT YOU KEEP THE APPEARANCE OF THE DOORS, SO THAT WOULD BE A SIX PANEL RIGHT. DOOR CO CORRECT. YEAH. WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO MAINTAIN THE FRONT DOOR AS IT IS AND THEN, UM, MORE POSSIBLE TO TRY AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING LOOK OF THE EXISTING OR THE DOORS AT THE PORT COSHER WITHOUT REALLY ANY, I GUESS, EVIDENCE OF WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE. YEAH. SO EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT MAYBE ORIGINAL TO THE HOUSE, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD'VE BEEN FOUND ON THIS HOUSE, WHICH IS TYPICAL, IT'S THAT PANEL DOOR, RIGHT? CORRECT. IN GENERAL, YEAH. UM, WOULD WE ACCEPT HIM CHANGING THOSE WOOD SCREENS TO A GLASS SCREEN DOOR? I THINK WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE BECAUSE IT'S REVERSIBLE. CORRECT? I WASN'T ASKING FOR THAT THOUGH, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE NO, I KNOW, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE A SOLUTION. I I, I DO CONCUR WITH STAFF THAT THE PANEL DOORS WOULD BE THE DOORS, THE REPLACEMENT PRODUCT THAT WE, I WOULD ACCEPT, BUT I'LL, I'LL LET OTHER APPLICANTS, UH, OTHER COMMISSIONERS COMMENT. OTHER COMMENTS? YEAH, I HAVE SOME COMMENTS. UM, MR. MCNEIL, HOW OLD IS THE HOUSE? I BELIEVE IT'S 1930. 1930. SO CAN WE ASSUME THAT THE EXISTING WINDOWS ARE ABOUT 50, 60, 70 YEARS OLD? I I ASSUME THEY WERE, THEY ARE ORIGINAL, SO THEY'VE ACTUALLY SERVED THE HOUSE PRETTY WELL. I'M, I'M ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, CAUTIOUS, VERY CONSERVATIVE ABOUT THE WINDOW REPLACEMENTS. UM, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING SOME OF THE PRODUCTS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT CAN ENHANCE THE ACOUSTIC ATTENUATION, THAT CAN, UM, MOLLIFY SOME OF THE TEMPERATURE CONCERNS. UM, SO HAVE YOU CONSIDERED ANY OF THOSE OPTIONS? YES, I, I, I RESEARCHED BUILDING SCIENCE QUITE IN DEPTH AND MM-HMM. , I'M, I, I DO AS A PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT, I'M LICENSED AS WELL. I'M A NOT, I DON'T THINK IT'S, THERE'S CERTAIN, UM, PRODUCTS AND THINGS, SOME INSERTS AND THINGS THAT I DON'T THINK ARE RESPONSIBLE TO PUT IN BECAUSE THEY MAKE, UH, MOISTURE TRAPS AND POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE DIFFERENTIAL CAVITIES THAT CAN GROW MOLD AND STUFF IF THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BEAUTY OF A DOUBLE PANED, UH, GLASS PRODUCT IS THAT IT CAN LOOK, UH, FROM A, FROM THE EXTERIOR, UH, COMPLETELY HISTORIC AND COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE WITHOUT ANYONE KNOWING. UM, AND IT PERFORMS REALLY WELL. AND WE, I, I HAVE A SOFT SPOT FOR HISTORIC WINDOWS TOO, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ONLY PROPOSING TO, UM, REPLACE THE WINDOWS THAT ARE IN THE VERY BACK OF THE HOUSE AT THIS ONE ROOM WHERE THERE IS A PROFOUND NEW ACOUSTIC CONCERN, THERE'S, BECAUSE OF THE NEW HOUSE BEING BUILT, UH, NEXT DOOR, AND IT IS NOT JUST THAT HOUSE, UH, LIVING NEXT TO THE PARKING LOT OF TRINITY UNIVERSITY, THERE ARE STUDENTS CAR ALARMS THAT GO OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND STAY ON THEM. SO WE'RE IN A NOISY CORNER. UM, AND I, WE'RE IN A KIND OF A PENINSULA WITHOUT MUCH HISTORIC CONTEXT AROUND US. UM, OUR HOUSE HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE TRINITY BEFORE THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, AND THE NEW NOISES AND THE NEW ACOUSTIC SITUATION WE'RE DEALING WITH, UH, WITH YOUNG KIDS AND TRYING TO LIVE OUR, OUR LIVES IN THIS HOUSE, UH, LOVING HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND LOVING OUR HISTORIC HOUSE. WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION THAT, UH, ACTUALLY PERFORMS. AND SO OTHER THAN THE, UM, UH, WATER DAMAGE THAT IS UNIQUE TO THOSE UPSTAIRS WINDOWS, UH, DO YOU HAVE THOSE [02:40:01] SI SIMILAR EXPERIENCES ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND IN THE OTHER ROOMS THAT WOULD REQUIRE WINDOW REPLACEMENTS? NO. THE ACOUSTICS ARE A PROBLEM THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE, BUT WE'RE ONLY TARGETING, WE'RE ONLY TRYING TO FIX THE PROBLEM OF OUR KIDS IN THEIR, THEIR ROOM BEING CLOSEST TO NEIGHBORS AND NOISES FROM THE NEIGHBORS, EVERY OTHER, UH, SILL, EVERY OTHER, UH, WINDOW, HISTORIC WINDOW SEEMS TO BE FUNCTIONING GREAT AND WE'RE HAPPY THAT WE CAN KEEP THEM, AND WE ARE PERFECTLY HAPPY TO SALVAGE THESE SASHES ON SITE AND KEEP 'EM FOREVER FOR WHOEVER IN THE FUTURE IF THEY NEED TO BE RE UH, REINSTALLED FOR SOME DESIRED REASON IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? UH, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER FETZER, UH, UM, THE WINDOWS THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE ROOF, AND THEREFORE THEY GET A LOT OF SPLASHBACK. UM, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED A GUTTER FROM THAT ROOF TO DIVERT THE WATER AWAY FROM THOSE AND JUST INSTALLING FULL WOOD WINDOWS THERE, UH, AS OPPOSED TO ALUMINUM CLAD? NO, I MEAN, A GUTTER WOULD BE A MORE PROFOUND VISUAL CHANGE TO THE HOUSE THAN, UM, THE ULTIMATE PROPOSAL PROPOSED WINDOWS THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN. SO WE WERE GOING WITH WHAT WE FELT DID NOT ALTER THE, UH, APPEARANCE OF THE HOUSE. MR. VICE CHAIR, CAN I ASK THE APPLICANT ONE THING? YES, PLEASE. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO JUST DO THE TWO WINDOWS BY THE ROOF AND NOT THE ONE, UH, BY THE PORT SIER? SINCE THAT'S, THOSE ARE THE, I MEAN, THE BIGGER ISSUE IS BECAUSE OF THE ROOF. DID THE APPLICANT HEAR THE COMMISSIONER? AND I'M NOT SAYING MY OTHER COM FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WILL ACCEPT IT, BUT I'M JUST THINKING THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DISCUSSED. OH, WE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD GET THE GOAL FOR THIS THREE WINDOWS INSTEAD OF TWO IS BECAUSE ALL THREE OF 'EM ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE ACOUSTIC PROBLEM. SO WE JUST FIGURED IT WAS CLEANER TO GET THREE IDENTICAL WINDOWS FROM THE INTERIOR PERSPECTIVE. AND IF WE COULD GET, UM, TWO PLAID WINDOWS AND THEN ONE WOOD WINDOW THAT WERE IDENTICAL OTHERWISE, UH, UH, WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT TOO. BUT WE WERE STICKING WITH ONE PRODUCT FOR SIMPLICITY'S SAKE. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? ANY POTENTIAL MOTION AT THIS POINT? I MEAN, WHAT'S YOUR OPINION? I MEAN, MAYBE COMMISSIONER SAVINO OR YOU, UH, MR. , WHAT WOULD YOU THINK OF THAT PROPOSAL? UM, WITH GOING WITH THE TWO CLA PLUS ONE WOOD? I, I THINK THAT COULD BE A POTENTIAL, UM, PATH FORWARD. I HAVE ON MY OWN HOME A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION THAT WAS EXACERBATED BY, UH, AN ORIGINAL CLAY TILE ROOF BEING REPLACED WITH CONCRETE TILE, THUS TOTALLY SCREWING UP THE, THE FLASHING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ROOF AND THE, AND THE WINDOWSILL. AND THOSE ARE ACCELERATING IN, IN, UH, DETERIORATION. SO I'M SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT YOU'RE EXPERIENCING THERE, AS WELL AS THE SOUND CON, UH, CONCERNS. UM, IF I UNDERSTAND, THESE THREE WINDOWS ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT? OF, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. OKAY. ANY MOTION FROM, UH, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS? I DO HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT. OKAY. UM, I DO, UM, I THINK WHAT'S CONVINCING FOR ME IS THE FACT THAT THESE TWO WINDOWS HAVE BEEN AT THE SLOPE, AT THE GABLE SLOPE FOR SO LONG, AND YES, THEY ARE SHOWING SIGNS OF, UH, OF A LOT OF ROTTEN REP NEED REPAIR. SO MY INCLINATION IS TO REPAIR THE BOTTOM SASH AND LET IT GO FOR ANOTHER 56 YEARS. YEAH, BUT THE PROBLEM IS I HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE TOO. I'VE REPAIRED A LOT OF THE WOOD THAT WE'RE GETTING NOW IS NOT THE SAME WOOD AS A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. SO BASICALLY THEY WILL LAST A YEAR AND THEN YOU HAVE TO REPAINT IT BECAUSE WHATEVER WOOD WE HAVE NOW, IT'S JUST, I MEAN, IT'S JUST TERRIBLE. SO YOU CAN'T, I MEAN, YOU CAN DO THE REPAIRS, BUT IN A SPOT LIKE THAT WITH WATER MM-HMM. , I DON'T KNOW, I DID ALL THE REPAIRS AND MINE AND REPLACED WITH WOOD THAT WAS JUST MM-HMM. , I WOULD SAY THIS IS CASE BY CASE. IT'S ON THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. I FEEL COMPELLED AND THIS KIND OF, MAYBE IT'S JUST LIKE A COMPROMISE. MM-HMM. JUST THE TWO WINDOWS. THAT'S JUST THE REASON. [02:45:02] AGREED. AGREED. UM, WHAT GAVE ME THE CLUE AS TO REPAIRING WAS STAFF'S COMMENT THAT THE EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS ARE SALVAGED AND STORED ON THE SITE FOR FUTURE USE OR DONATED TO ANOTHER ARCH, UM, ARCHITECTURAL SALVAGE. SO SOMEBODY ELSE IS GONNA BUY THOSE. SO SASHES USE THE OLD WOOD. SO PERHAPS THERE ARE SOME, UM, SALVAGE PLACES WHERE WE CAN GET THE OLD WOOD TO REPLACE THAT BOTTOM MASSAGE. UM, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SAY THOUGH, THE, THE THING WE PROPOSED, OR THE REASON WE BROUGHT THIS CASE UP IS THE ACOUSTIC CONCERN IS THE PRIMARY CONCERN. UH, THAT'S WHAT KATIE AND I LOOKED AT ON SITE. AND KATIE, I, I ASKED HER ABOUT THIS 'CAUSE THE ACOUSTICS DIDN'T APPEAR AT ALL IN THEIR FINDINGS, AND I ASKED WHY NOT? AND SHE SAID, WELL, THAT WAS THEIR, BASICALLY THEIR HANDS ARE TIED AND THAT'S, THEY'RE NOT LISTING THE ACOUSTICS BECAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE U SOME U D C STUFF. SO ALL I WHAT THE MAIN, MAIN THING IS LIKE, UM, LIKE I WOULD ACCEPT, UH, ALL WOOD WINDOWS AS LONG AS THEY'RE DOUBLE PANE, UH, FOR THE, THE THREE WINDOWS AS A, AS THE THING BEFORE WE WENT TO TWO NEW WINDOWS AND KEPT THE OLD ONE. THE ACOUSTIC THING IN OUR SANITY OF OUR FAMILY IS THE PRIMARY THING WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT HERE. OH, SO YOU'RE WILLING TO REPLACE THE THREE WITH ALL WOOD WINDOWS. I'M SAYING IF YOU ARE ASKING ME TO ONLY HAVE TWO WINDOWS NEW AND KEEP THE OTHER ONE UNTOUCHED, THAT WILL STILL CAUSE A HUGE ACOUSTIC BURDEN ON OUR FAMILY. UH, SO IF WE CAN, WHATEVER WE CAN GET IN ORDER TO HAVE THIS ROOM FOR OUR FIVE-YEAR-OLD AND SEVEN YEAR OLD TO SLEEP WITHOUT NOISE FROM THE NEIGHBORS, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE WINDOW'S ON THE BACK, UM, HOW CHAIR, HOW ARE YOU FEELING ON THE DOORS, MR. CHAIR? THE, YOU, YOU KNOW, I JUST, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF REMIND IS THE RIGHT THING TO SAY, BUT THE, AT SOME POINT, THE CASE BY CASE, CASE BY CASE ARGUMENT IS, UM, DI DISHEARTENING. UM, BECAUSE, UM, WE HAVE CASES ALL THE TIME, AND THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE POINT OF CONTENTION, WINDOWS, THE, THE GENTLEMAN IS BROUGHT BEFORE US, THE ABSOLUTE BEST WINDOW AVAILABLE ON THE MARKET. RIGHT. THE MARVIN WINDOW. I LOVE THE MARVIN. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL WINDOW. UM, THE SITUATION THOUGH IS THAT WHAT I HEAR NORMALLY FROM THIS COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING BUILDINGS AND UM, WINDOWS, THIS IS NOT THE THE SCENARIO THAT NORMALLY AFFORDS PEOPLE THE OPTION, ANY OPTION. THIS IS KINDA LIKE THE LEAST. AND, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, AND WITH, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE ACOUSTIC ISSUE, WE, WE HAD ONE PERSON CAME BEFORE US THAT THEIR CHILDREN WERE FREEZING AND THE COLD SNAP AND THEY HAD TO STAY WITH A SINGLE PANE WOOD WINDOW. AGREE OR NOT. AND IT'S NOT CASE BY CASE TO SAY THAT THAT'S THAT SITUATION. AND SOMEHOW THIS IS DIFFERENT. THAT'S NOT CASE BY CASE, THAT'S JUST PREFERENCE. PARTICULARLY WHEN WE REFERENCE OUR OWN HOUSES, IT BECOMES REALLY PREFERENCE. OKAY. I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A LOSS OF RESPECT HERE. YEAH. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. IT IS POINT. WE ARE TIED TO SOMETHING ORDER AND WE'RE TIED TO SOMETHING. AND THIS POINT OF ORDER I THINK IS VERY RELEVANT. I THINK IT'S VERY RELEVANT THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT TYING EVERY SINGLE COMMISSIONER HERE TO CASE BY CASE THAT AS AN EXCUSE. 'CAUSE WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO, I'M, WE NEED TO FIND, IM SURE YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT I MEANT WHEN I SAID CASE BY CASE. WELL, WE, WE NEED TO FIND SOME COMMONALITY. CLEARLY YOU'RE CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMISSION IS. WELL, WE NEED TO FIND SOME COMMONALITY IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS HERE, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE AN EXPECTATION THAT THEY'RE GONNA GET FAIRLY TREATED. AND THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN FAIRLY TREAT PEOPLE IF YOU LOOK AT THE SPECIFICS OF THEIR CASE. CORRECT. WILL YOU AGREE TO THAT POINT OF, I I WOULD SAY THAT WHAT MY POINT IS TODAY HAS GONE TO WHAT MY POINT IS, WHAT MY POINT IS, THERE'S AN APPLICANT HERE. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CASE BEFORE US. WHAT MY CASE LEGAL, WHAT MY POINT IS IS THAT THAT'S MOVE ON. THIS IS NOT A COMMON, THE THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION. I THINK COMMISSIONER SAVINA WAS MAKING A POINT OF IT, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, THAT WE HAVE WINDOWS THAT ARE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN GOOD SHAPE. THEY'RE NOT THE CONDITIONS OF WINDOWS WHERE WE NORMALLY LET THE PERSON NOT HAVE TO USE A WINDOW BECAUSE THE WINDOW'S FALLING APART. THIS IS NOT THAT SITUATION AND THE CASE BY CASE ARGUMENT, IT, IT'S BEING USED TOO MUCH. THAT'S, THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S ON POINT. OKAY. I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR POSITION ON THAT. AND MY REFERENCE TO MY OWN HOUSE WAS MERELY TO SAY, YEAH, I'VE SEEN THIS CON CONDITION BEFORE BECAUSE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL [02:50:01] CONFIGURATION HAS EXACERBATED, WHICH, AND I THINK WE'RE USING IT, IS IN NO WAY, UH, AFFECTS MY POSITION ON, ON THE HISTORIC WE'RE DOING THIS. AND MR. COMMISSIONER, I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT THE, THE MY POINT MORE THAN ANYTHING, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, IS THAT YOU'RE AN ARCHITECT. SO IT IS NOT JUST YOUR, I MEAN YOU HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE AND A LOT OF WINDOWS. IT'S NOT ANY WAY TO TELL YOU THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, UM, UH, IT'S TO SAY THAT CASE BY CASE IS JUST BEING USED TOO MUCH BECAUSE IT SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, WINDOWS THAT IS COMPARED TO ALL THE WINDOWS THAT COME BEFORE US. IT'S NOT JUST THIS WINDOW OR THE WINDOW BEFORE US. LOOK AT THE, THE GENTLEMAN THAT SHOWED US HIS WINDOWS JUST A LITTLE WHILE AGO IN THAT HOUSE THAT HAS THE PLASTIC ON IT, SOMEONE'S WATCHING THIS. HOW DO THEY SEE THIS AND HOW DO THEY SEE FAIRNESS WITH RESPECT TO THESE WINDOWS AND THE WINDOWS THAT THAT GUY WAS JUST SHOWING US A WHILE AGO. IT JUST A POINT OF SENSITIVITY. THAT'S ALL. I COULD PROBABLY OFFER A FEW LITTLE MINOR THOUGHTS, BUT JUST THAT, HOLD ON, MR. AGAIN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS, I WAS DOING THIS BECAUSE I WAS GONNA ACCEPT THE WINDOWS THAT HE IS ACTUALLY PROPOSING. THAT'S THE WHOLE WHY WE'RE RESAYING THAT I'M SAYING THIS BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE A CASE TO BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND NON-COMPLIANT WINDOWS. BECAUSE NORMALLY THE GUIDELINES SAY REPLACING KIND, WHICH BE WOULD WITH WOOD. I'M ACTUALLY MOVING FORWARD WITH HIM REPLACING WITH THE PROPOSED WINDOWS. THAT'S WHAT MY POINT IS EXACTLY WHAT MY POINT IS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF SITUATION LOOKING AT THE WINDOW. 'CAUSE YOU ASKED, YOU WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOUR FELLOW COMMISSION SAY. RIGHT? THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION WHERE A WINDOW IS REPLACED. THIS IS THE SITUATION WHERE YOU NORMALLY SAY THAT A WINDOW SHOULD BE REPAIRED. THAT'S WHERE I WAS REFERENCING WHERE RIGHT. THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER SAVINA WAS GOING BECAUSE THE, YOU LOOK AT THE SASHES, YOU LOOK AT THE WINDOWS, THIS IS A REPLACEMENT SITUATION. IT SEEMS THAT MOST TYPICALLY, THAT ON A CASE BY CASE, THIS IS NOT REALLY A CASE BY CASE SITUATION. THIS IS KIND OF A PREFERENCE FOR SOME REASON. I, I THINK YOU'VE TOTALLY, TOTALLY, UH, MISUNDERSTOOD THE MOTIVATIONS AND THE DIRECTION OR MY POSITION ON THIS. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT MOTIVATIONS. IT'S DON'T READ TOO MUCH INTO IT. I'M TALKING ABOUT MOTIVATIONS. WELL, I'M ONLY READING INTO IT WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WHICH APPARENTLY YOU SOMEHOW THINK WE'RE NOT BEING EQUITABLE TO PEOPLE WHO COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION FOR SOME REASON. THAT WOULD BE TRUE, BUT I DIDN'T, I'M NOT MENTIONING MOTIVES. I'M NOT SAYING YOU HAVE A MOTIVE. ALRIGHT. MAY WE PLEASE CONTINUE WITH THIS CASE? YES. AND MAY WE PLEASE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. MAY WE PLEASE BEGIN TO BRING OUR COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE TO MAKING AN EQUITABLE DECISION HERE. THAT, THAT'S WHAT MY POINT IS. ALRIGHT, LET'S MOVE AHEAD THEN. SO IF ANY OF YOU HAVE A CONSTRUCTIVE MOTION TO MAKE, I WILL ENTERTAIN IT. I'LL TRY ONE IF THAT'S OKAY. I'M GONNA SAY, UH, RECOMMEND ITEM. I'M GONNA START WITH ITEM NUMBER TWO BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT'S IN THE RECOMMENDATION. SO ITEM NUMBER TWO WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. AND I AM GONNA BE COMPELLED TO APPROVE THE WINDOW REPLACEMENT WITH THE STANDARD WINDOW STIPULATIONS, BUT WITH THE WINDOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED. AND I, I WOULD SAY I WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE THE TWO BY THE ROOF INITIALLY AND THEN THE APPLICANT CAN MAYBE COME BACK FOR THE THIRD ONE. IF HE DOESN'T FIND A REPLACEMENT IN KIND OF WOOD WITH WOULD, UH, ACCEPTABLE. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. WOULD THERE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY WITH KATIE OR ONCE, WELL, ACTUALLY I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS CLEAR ENOUGH. SO THE THIRD WINDOW, WHICH YOU CLAIM IS ALSO HAS ROT AND ALL THAT. SO I'M ACCEPTING A WOOD WITH WOOD REPLACEMENT AND THE NONCOMPLIANT WOOD ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS ON THE TUBE BY THE ROOF. SO YOU MAY BE ABLE TO FIND SOME WOOD WINDOWS THAT ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO SEAL SOME NOISE OUT. AND DO YOU ALSO INCLUDE THE STIPULATION THAT, UH, THE WINDOWS BE SALVAGED? IT SOUNDS LIKE THE, THE APPLICANT IS WILLING SORRY. YES. YEAH, EXACTLY. WITH THE STIPULATION TOO AND ALSO THE STANDARD WINDOWS STIPULATIONS IN SIZE. AND DOES THAT, DOES THE SECOND CONCUR WITH THAT AS WELL, I'M ASSUMING? YES. OKAY. LET'S , LET'S HAVE A, UH, ROLL CALL PLEASE. GIBBS. AYE. V ABSENT? AYE. VELAZQUEZ? AYE. OLA? AYE. MAZUA AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. GRO AYE. BOWMAN IS ABSENT. FETZER AYE. AND LA AYE. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [02:55:01] THANK YOU. UM, ALRIGHT, LITUS, UM, ITEM [20. Address/Description: 222 OSTROM HDRC Case No.: 2021-558 Historic District Name: River Road RIO District: RIO-1 Applicant: Michael Martinez Request: Garage door replacement City Council Dist.: 1] NUMBER 20 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. ITEM NUMBER 21 [21. Address/Description: 901 MASON ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-475 Landmark Name: Individual Landmark Historic District Name: Government Hill Applicant: Robert Miranda/finesse construction llc Request: Standing seam metal roof with a ridge cap installation City Council Dist.: 2] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 21 H D R C CASE NUMBER 20 21 4 75 9 0 1 MASON. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF WITH A RIDGE CAP ON THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE AT 9 0 1 MASON LOCATED WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT HILL. HISTORIC DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES REGARDING RIDGE DETAIL. THAT IS WITH A CRIMPED OR MUNCH RIDGE SE RIDGE SEAM OR A CRIMPED RIDGE SLEEVE BE INSTALLED IN PLACE OF THE INSTALLED RIDGE CAP. UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, MR. ROBERT MIRANDA IS JOINING US VIRTUALLY. UM, MR. MIRANDA, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT YOU WISH TO MAKE? UH, NOT AT THE MOMENT. UH, WE DID A, WE JUST DID A, A WALK INSPECTION WITH THE COMMISSION LAST WEEK. UM, WE DID GO OVER SOME OF THE, UH, ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE GAP. UM, WE DECIDED WHAT CAME ABOUT WAS, UH, MINIMIZING THE, THE WIDTH OF THE RICH GAP BY APPROXIMATELY HALF INCH TO AN INCH AS YOU SEE THE PICTURE, UM, TO MINIMIZE THE BULK NESS OF IT. UH, WE ALSO DISCUSSED, UH, UM, SHAPING THE EDGE CAP TO MATCH THE EXACT LIGHT RIGHT THERE, UH, TO MATCH THE WIDTH OF THE, THE RIB OF THE ROOF APPROXIMATELY. UH, IT WILL HAVE TO GO DOWN ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN INCH OR SO IN A WRAP AROUND AND UNDER THE, UH, UH, METAL ROOF IN ITSELF TO AVOID, UH, WATER ENTRY. UH, BUT WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO, UH, TO MINIMIZE THE BULKINESS FROM, UH, THE VIEW FROM THE STREETS. AND, UH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, ANOTHER SOLUTION FOR THE STAIRCASE TRIM ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. UM, AND WE DECIDED TO GET RID OF THE, UH, THE CAP ITSELF AND, UM, COME UP WITH A, UH, IT WAS A, OH BOY, I, SO MR. MIRANDA, THE, LET ME INTERRUPT YOU. SO WE WERE AT THE D R C AND WE KIND OF CAME UP WITH A SOLUTION WITH, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT. AND OF COURSE, BECAUSE OF TIMELINE HE WASN'T ABLE TO SHOW US THAT. SO MR. MIRANDA, WERE YOU ABLE TO, LIKE, DID YOU TRY IN THE MEANTIME, I KNOW YOU COULDN'T SUBMIT ANY PICTURES OR ANYTHING, BUT DID YOU TRY ANYTHING BETWEEN OUR MEETING AND TODAY? UH, YES. UH, WE CAME UP WITH A CAP THAT WILL, YOU KNOW, AS THE, AS THE ROOF BENDS UPWARDS AT A 45 DEGREE AT THE VERY TOP, UH, WITH A CREME SEAM, WE DECIDED TO COME IN WITH A, UH, SLEEVE ON TOP OF THAT. AND, UH, ON TOP OF THAT BEND IS GONNA PUSH IT DOWN AS A DRIP EDGE ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. SO WE'RE GONNA GET RID OF THAT BULKINESS OF THE STAIRCASE. YEAH. BY THE STAIRCASE, WHICH IS THAT ONE. EXACTLY. YEAH. SO WE'RE GETTING RID OF THAT. SO THAT WILL BE, THAT WILL BE GONE. AND THOSE ARE BASICALLY THE, THE, THE FEW ISSUES THAT WE HAD THERE. UH, THE LAST ISSUE AND HAS ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED IS THE PAINTING OF THE TRIM, UH, THAT GOES UP ONTO THE BUILDING WALL, WHICH IS THE STEP FLASHING. UH, AND THAT SHOULD BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE BUILDING COLOR, UH, TO, UH, MINIMIZE THE CONTRAST OF THE METAL WITH THE EXISTING BILL. YEAH, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PICTURE. IT SEEMS THAT APPLICANT IS AGREEING WITH WHAT WE DID SAID IN D R C. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO CRAFT A MOTION. MR. MAYBE YOU COMMISSIONER ZINO OR, UH, CHAIRMAN FET SIR WAS THERE TOO. I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO A MOCKED UP SAMPLE TO CONFIRM. WELL, THE PROBLEM IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE TIMELINE, WE, WE ALREADY KNEW THAT BACK IN D R C, HE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUPPLY THAT TO STAFF IN TIME BECAUSE THE D R C MEETING THE DEADLINE WAS LAST FRIDAY AND WE HAD A D R C MEETING ON MAN I WEDNESDAY. SO THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MM-HMM. SEND ANY UPDATED MATERIAL IF, IF, IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I THINK I COULD MAYBE EXPLAIN, UM, WHAT WELL AND WITH THE SOLUTION IS AND ALSO THAT HE WAS, HE SAID HE WASN'T, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GONNA BRING IN SOMEBODY TO DO THE WORK, IT'S BETTER TO JUST BRING IN THE WORKERS TO DO THE COMPLETE JOB. SURE, SURE. AND WE ALSO HAVE TO DEFINE WHERE EXACTLY THIS APPLICATION WOULD OCCUR, [03:00:01] WHERE THE, THE GABLE, UM, I ALTERED, I THINK THE, THE APPLICANT AND, UH, ROBERT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT NOTED THAT ALL RIDGES WOULD BE ADDRESSED. OKAY. UM, THAT IS CORRECT. SO, UM, I, I THINK WHAT THE SOLUTION THAT WAS DISCUSSED ON SITE IS, IS THE FLASHING THAT'S SHOWN HERE THAT'S EXPOSED COULD BE MODIFIED TO A 45 DEGREE ANGLE. UH, THAT WOULD THEN ALLOW TRIMMING FROM THE CAP. THE END CAPS WOULD BE ANGULAR. SO THEY WOULD ONLY COVER THE ACTUAL EXPOSED OPENING MM-HMM. , UH, THAT WOULD RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANTLY LESS, UH, PROFILE FOR THE RIDGE CAP. UM, IF YOU WANT TO, FOR VISUAL, YOU COULD SAY ABOUT WHERE THE TAPE MEASURE IS CURRENTLY MEETING THE RIDGE CAP, THAT WOULD THEN BE THE CAP AND THE ACTUAL END CAP WOULD ONLY SHOW, OR WOULD ONLY COVER THIS ACTUALLY EXPOSED OPENING HERE. UM, THE FLASHING THAT TOUCHES ANY WOOD ON THE HOUSE WOULD BE PAINTED TO MATCH. AND THE END CAP HERE WOULD BE AN ANGULAR CAP THAT WOULD ONLY COVER THE EXPOSED OPENING. UM, EXCELLENT. ANYBODY CORRECT ME IF I'VE LEFT OUT ANYTHING OR YOU JUST GO TO PICTURE EIGHT? 'CAUSE THAT WAS ALSO WHERE HE MENTIONED ZOOM OUT. UH, PICTURE EIGHT. UH, YEAH, RIGHT THERE. THE FLASHING ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. HE WAS, I MEAN, JUST SO IT'S ON THE RECORD, HE WAS GONNA PAINT THAT TOO MUCH. THAT IS CORRECT. THE FLASHING THAT'S RIGHT UP AGAINST THE WINDOW. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS A MOTION, BUT LET'S JUST SAY THAT A MOTION TO APPROVE AS DISCUSSED IN D R C AND PRESENTED TODAY BY STAFF. AND ONE MORE ITEM. DID WE DISCUSS THE, UH, ROOFED WALL FLASHING BEING PAINTED, PAINTED GRAY? COMMISSIONER? OH, I'M, SO IS THAT WHAT YOU JUST STATED? I PUT IT OVER HERE ON THE RECORD RIGHT NOW. SO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT INCLUDES PAINTING. OH, THE GRAY PART THAT'S UP AGAINST THE WINDOW ON THE SIDING. YES. YES. AND I WILL NOTE THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO PAINT THE FLASHING AT THE COLUMNS AND THE SIDING. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION. AND, AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. CAN WE CLARIFY THE MOTION, PLEASE? I'LL SECOND IT. I UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT WAS. OKAY. A CLARIFICATION OF THE MOTION IS REQUESTED FROM OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. YEAH. AND I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFICULT MOTION. RIGHT. SO AS MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, THE CHANGES THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN D R C AND PRESENTED TODAY WITH BY STAFF. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO, IS THAT CLEAR TO STAFF? I THINK WE'RE ALL CLEAR. WE DISCUSSED A LOT, I THINK. YEAH. APPLICANT IS UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. SO LET THE RECORDS SHOW THAT THE STAFF IS NODDING THEIR HEAD, UH, IN AGREEMENT. NO, WE HAVE A SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND. AND MAY WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? GIBBS? AYE. FISHES ABSENT. AYE. VELASQUEZ AYE. OLA. AYE. MAZUA. AYE. CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP. AYE. BOWMAN IS ABSENT. ZER AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES. AND MY AND MY, UM, COMPLIMENTS TO THOSE WHO ATTENDED THE D R C AND HELPED US THROUGH CRAFTING THAT MOTION ON A THREE STORY ROOF. AND THE TREE OF THE NEIGHBOR FELL WHEN WE WERE STANDING ON THE ROOF. AND THIS HUGE EXPLOSION DURING THAT HIGH WIND. IT WAS THE WINDY DAY DURING THE HIGH WINDS. HIGH WINDS RISKING LIFE AND LIMB IN THE SERVICE OF OUR CITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET US PROCEED. THANK COMMISSION FOR YOUR TIME. UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER [22. Address/Description: 209 SADIE ST HDRC Case No.: 2021-520 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: Chris and Ava Coker Request: Historic Tax Certification and Verification, removal of roof dormers, removal of a brick chimney, roof replacement, and fenestration modifications City Council Dist.: 1] 22 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 21 5 22 0 9. SADIE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING HISTORIC TAX CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2 0 9 SADIE. IN ADDITION TO THOSE TWO ITEMS, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, REPLACE THE EXISTING SHINGLE ROOF IN KIND TWO, REMOVE THREE EXISTING ROOF DORMERS. THREE, REMOVE THE EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY. FOUR, MODIFY THE FENESTRATION PATTERN ON THE EAST FACADE BY REMOVING BY BOTH REMOVING AND RELOCATING EXISTING WINDOW OPENINGS. AND FIVE, REMOVE THE EXISTING, OR EXCUSE ME, REMOVE THE FENESTRATION PATTERN ON THE REAR FACADE BY REMOVING AND RELOCATING EXISTING WINDOW OPENINGS. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF HISTORIC TAX CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION AT THIS TIME. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE CURRENT VIOLATIONS BE RESOLVED AS NOTED IN THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF HISTORIC TAX CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION. THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR HISTORIC TAX CERTIFICATION OR VERIFICATION UNTIL THE CURRENT VIOLATIONS ARE RESOLVED. THE, THE DENIAL OF HISTORIC TAX CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION DOES NOT RESOLVE ANY ACTIVE VIOLATIONS. ONE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER ONE INKIND ROOF REPLACEMENT WITH THE STIPULATION THAT ALL ORIGINAL ROOF ELEMENTS, SPECIFICALLY THE DORMERS AND BRICK CHIMNEY BE [03:05:01] RECONSTRUCTED. TWO STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER TWO, THE REMOVAL OF THREE ROOF DORMERS. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT EACH OF THREE DORMERS BE RECONSTRUCTED. THREE STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER THREE, THE REMOVAL OF THE BREAK. CHIMNEY STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS ELEMENT BE RECONSTRUCTED. FOUR STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FOUR, FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT ALL ORIGINAL WINDOW OPENINGS BE STORED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AND FIVE STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE. FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT ALL ORIGINAL WINDOW OPENINGS BE RESTORED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES. ALL RECONSTRUCTION WORK SHOULD BE BASED ON PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ORIGINAL ELEMENTS. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR EACH OF THE ABOVE NOTED ITEMS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO O H P STAFF FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. UH, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT, MR. CHRIS COKER IS JOINING US VIRTUALLY. HEY, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. GOOD EVENING. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE COMMENT ON THE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS? WELL, UH, YOU GUYS STARTING TO KNOW ME ALL TOO WELL. SO, UM, NUMBER ONE, I WAS, UM, I'M UNDER THE IMPRESSION FOR ALL THESE HISTORIC REHABS THAT I'VE DONE WITH YOU GUYS THAT WHEN REPLACING WITH LIGHT KIND, UM, THERE'S A PRECEDENT THERE GOING BY THE, UH, STIPULATIONS YOU HAVE ON SAN ANTONIO.GOV IN REGARDS TO THE ROOF SPECIFICALLY AND THE SHINGLES, UH, WE REPLACED WITH EXACTLY WHAT WAS ON THE ROOF PRIOR. UH, SO SHINGLE COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF, UM, YOU KNOW, NOW I WILL SAY THIS, UM, IN REGARDS TO THE DORMERS AND THE CHIMNEY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, BECAUSE WE REHABBED THIS PROPERTY A WHILE AGO, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS BETWEEN MYSELF AND MY GC AS TO WHY WE ACTUALLY REMOVED THOSE. BECAUSE I HAVE OTHER PROPERTIES WHERE HISTORIC PROPERTIES WHERE WE HAVE LEFT 'EM, I THINK, I THINK THEY'RE GREAT. SO SPEAKING WITH EDWARD ABOUT IT, I SAID, LOOK, I DON'T, I CAN'T RECALL THE CONVERSATION I HAD AND, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT GOOD REASON THERE WAS FOR US TO REMOVE THEM OTHER THAN LOOKING AT THEM NOW SEEING THAT THEY ARE CLAD IN VINYL SIDING. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE REMOVED THAT AND IT WAS JUST A SHELL. UM, UH, I HAVE NO CLUE. I, FOR THE LACK OF ME CAN'T REMEMBER, UH, THE CONVERSATIONS I HAD, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T SEE ANY GOOD REASON WHY I WOULD HAVE REMOVED THEM JUST TO REMOVE THEM. SO I KNOW IT'S NOT A, AN EXCUSE, YOU GUYS KNOW THAT, THAT I LOVE MY HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND I LOVE REHABBING 'EM AND, UH, MAKING, TAKING 'EM BACK TO THEIR, THEIR FULL GLORY. UH, SO I, I DON'T HAVE ANY GOOD REASON WHY WE TOOK THOSE OUT, BUT I'M SURE THERE WAS A REASON. UM, NOW TO, TO SPEAK ABOUT THE CHIMNEY. UM, THE CHIMNEY WAS DILAPIDATED. I ACTUALLY TRIED TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO OUR DESIGN, ESPECIALLY INTERIOR, UM, BECAUSE IT DOES FALL IN WHAT IS NOW THE LIVING ROOM. AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE AN EXTREMELY COOL FEATURE. HOWEVER, A LOT OF THE BRICK WAS CRUMBLING AND IT JUST WASN'T GOING, UH, FOR ME TO, TO SAVE IT, I WOULD'VE HAD TO COVER ALL OF THE BRICK UP. AND AT THAT POINT IT DOES NOT BECOME, UH, AESTHETICALLY, UH, OR HISTORICALLY CHARMING IN ANY REGARD. AND IT WAS MORE OF A NUISANCE, UM, AND A AND A DANGER ACTUALLY. UM, SO I DID, I DID GIVE AUTHORIZATION TO MY GC TO REMOVE THAT, NOT EVEN THINKING THAT I NEEDED TO GET THE APPROVAL ON IT. AND MAYBE THAT'S JUST BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THIS WAS TWO YEARS AGO THAT WE REHABBED THIS PROPERTY OR THAT WE TOOK THAT OUT. UM, THERE WERE MANY MORE, UM, REQUESTS THAT I MADE TO H D R C ON THIS HOUSE. SOME DENIED, SOME APPROVED, Y'ALL ALLOWED A DEMO OF A BUILDING, A STRUCTURE IN THE BACK OF THIS PROPERTY. SO IT'S NOT AS THOUGH I WAS TRYING TO AVOID ANYONE IN ANY REGARD. SO I, I HOPE YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND THAT. UM, BUT THE CHIMNEY, IT WAS DILAPIDATED. I ENDED UP USING SOME OF THOSE BRICKS TO MAKE A, A PATHWAY ON THE GROUND. SO I DID REPURPOSE WHAT I COULD SAVE FROM IT. UM, NOW, UH, I THINK IT'S ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE, THE WINDOWS, THOUGH I WAS ALWAYS UNDER, JUST LIKE I WAS WITH REPLACING WITH LIGHT KIND ON THE SHINGLES. UM, I WAS ALWAYS UNDER THE IMPRESSION, AND YOU'LL SEE THE WINDOW IN QUESTION IS ON IT. IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THAT EDWARD, THE, IT'S A SMALL WINDOW ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, DIRECTLY IN THE MIDDLE RIGHT THERE. YEAH. UM, SO THAT IS THE WINDOW IN QUESTION. WE REMOVE THAT. THAT'S A, UH, RESTROOM NOW, UH, OR MASTER EN SUITE, HOWEVER, UM, EDWARD, DO YOU HAVE THE PICTURES FROM THAT I PROVIDED TO YOU WHERE, UH, FROM THE STREET YOU CANNOT SEE AND YOU COULD NOT SEE THAT WINDOW? SO AS MY IMPRESSION IS, IS WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THIS, IS THAT IF YOU COULD NOT SEE IT FROM THE STREET, IT'S NOT [03:10:01] SOMETHING, SEE THAT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS, UM, AN ISSUE, UH, AS FAR AS ALTERATION. SAME WITH THE REAR OF THE, THE STRUCTURE. MATTER OF FACT, WE HAD A, AN ADDITION ADDED TO IT, UM, ABOUT 400 SQUARE FEET AND ALL THAT WAS APPROVED. SO I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHICH WINDOWS WE'RE REFERRING TO IN REGARDS TO THAT, BUT I HAD THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY, UM, TO YOU GUYS FROM OUR ARCHITECT AND THEY, THOSE PLANS WERE APPROVED. SO, UM, I'M NOT, UH, I DON'T KNOW UNLESS, UNLESS I DIDN'T GO BY THE PLANS. I DON'T KNOW. EDWARD, DO YOU HAVE THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS THAT I SENT IN TO YOU GUYS? I DO HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SET THAT WE CAN PULL UP. OKAY. UH, THERE ARE TWO WINDOWS THAT WERE APPROVED AT THE REAR. YEAH, THERE ARE, MAN. AND THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT. THE, UH, FENESTRATION PROFILE, THE ORIGINAL FENESTRATION PROFILE, UH, THAT WAS APPROVED AND OBVIOUSLY ONE THAT EXISTS, UH, DIFFERS FROM WHAT WAS ACTUALLY INSTALLED. UM, GOTCHA. AND, BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE, RIGHT? SO THIS IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. UM, IS IT REQUIRED THAT I HAVE APPROVAL FOR SOMETHING ON THE BACKSIDE THAT IS NOT VISIBLE? SO MR. COKER, JUST A CLARIFICATION ON THAT. UH, IT, IT, IT, UH, ALL PARTS OF THE BUILDING HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS. NOW IT CAN COME UNDER CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT READILY VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WHEN IT COMES TO H D R C TO APPROVE IT. BUT STILL THOSE GUIDELINES IN THE U D C APPLY TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY EXTERIOR ONLY, CORRECT? SAY THAT AGAIN? YES. EXTERIOR. EXTERIOR ONLY. YES. EXTERIOR ONLY. CORRECT. GOTCHA. UM, UNDERSTOOD. I GUESS GOING FORWARD, UH, I'M GONNA NEED TO ALTER MY, UH, MY PROCESSES WHEN IN REGARDS TO THAT, SO OBVIOUSLY YOU GUYS, I'M, I'M TRYING TO GET ANOTHER ONE OF MY PROPERTIES WAS, UM, ANOTHER HISTORIC PROPERTY WAS APPROVED FOR THE TAX INCENTIVE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. UM, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA ASK FOR LENIENCY, OBVIOUSLY IN THIS REGARD. I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE THE, UM, IF EDWARD, IF YOU WOULD SCROLL THROUGH SOME OF THE AFTER PICTURES ON THIS, I MEAN, IT'S A STUNNING PROPERTY, ABSOLUTELY STUNNING FROM WHAT IT WAS PRIOR. AND, UM, I'M GONNA ASK THAT YOU ALL MAYBE HAVE A LITTLE, UH, PITY ON ME, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE ONE WE JUST WENT THROUGH FOR GARFIELD, TRYING TO GET THAT GUY APPROVED. UM, BUT THAT'S, I GUESS THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS. I THINK COMMISSIONER GRU, DO YOU WANTED A CLARIFICATION? I HAD A QUESTION. YES. UH, AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA DO THE ONE IN GARFIELD. I HOPE THAT ONE IN GARFIELD, YOU'RE GONNA FOLLOW THE DRAWINGS AM I UNDERSTAND? ABSOLUTELY. HUNDRED PERCENT. BUT Y'ALL HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON IT TOO, RIGHT? SO, UM, HOLD ON, ON, HOLD ON, MR. KER. LET'S LOOK AT THE BACK. SO THE DRAWING SAYS IT'S ONE BACK DOOR AND TWO WINDOWS. TWO WINDOWS ON EACH SIDE OF THE BACK DOOR. YEAH. AND NOW WE'RE LEFT WITH ONE BACK DOOR, ONE WINDOW. CORRECT. OKAY. SO THAT'S NOT JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING WITH A GC, THAT WAS LIKE CHANGING COMPLETELY A DESIGN. YEAH, AND I DON'T SEE, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT TRANSPIRED. I DON'T KNOW. I HIRED A ARCHITECTURE FIRM JUST TO DO THE RENDERINGS. YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I SPECIFICALLY GOT INTO DETAIL ABOUT HOW MANY WINDOWS TO PUT UP AND MAYBE I JUST, IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT ON MY BEHALF. BUT UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHILE MY GC IS LICENSED AND HE DOES FANTASTIC WORK, IT'S NOT LIKE I HIRED A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TO GO EXACTLY. BUY CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. ALL IT WAS WELL, BUT THERE'S CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITY, UM, I'M SORRY, SECOND. AND, AND YOU ALSO, I MEAN, YOU MADE GOOD MONEY ON THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? SO LET'S GET, LET'S GET TO WHERE, WHERE CAN WE DO THE COMPROMISE? I OWN, I OWN THE PROPERTY, SO I TECHNICALLY HAVEN'T MADE ANY MONEY ON IT. NO. SO LET'S JUST SEE WHERE WE CAN MAKE COMPROMISE. THIS IS THE HARD ONE FOR ME BECAUSE, UH, CAN STAFF JUST MAKE SURE, ARE WE ONLY THIS WINDOW FENESTRATION IS THE LITTLE ONE THAT WAS REMOVED AND THEN THIS, THAT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE DRAWINGS, OR IS THERE ANY OTHER WINDOWS? SO THERE'S THE SMALL WINDOW THAT WAS REMOVED. THE, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THERE SHOULD BE A TOTAL OF FOUR WINDOWS ON THAT SIDE FACADE. THERE ARE ONLY THREE. UM, AND THEN AT THE REAR THERE SHOULD BE, SO FIVE, THERE SHOULD BE, I GO, I THINK THERE IS 5 1, 2, 2, 4, 5. NOT THIS IS THE, IT'S THE, OH, THAT'S THE OTHER SIDE. UM, SO, UH, TWO WINDOWS AT THE REAR, THE ROOF DORMERS THAT YOU CAN SEE WERE PREVIOUSLY LOCATED ON THE FRONT AND SIDE FACADES. AND THE HISTORIC BRICK CHIMNEY, [03:15:01] UH, STAFF PERFORMED A, UH, SITE VISIT, UH, AS WE DO WITH ALL, UH, TAX CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION CASES. UM, AND STAFF DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY OTHER, UH, OUTSTANDING OR ITEMS THAT WERE IN VIOLATION. COMMISSIONERS, CAN I ASK YOU THIS? MAYBE? AND IF WE, IF WE CAN KIND OF COMPROMISE ON IT. UM, YOU KNOW, I LIKE THE DORMERS AND I DON'T KNOW WHY THOSE WERE TAKEN OUT. SO IT'S GONNA BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO, UM, TO RECONSTRUCT THE CHIMNEY, UH, AS WELL AS THE WINDOWS. BUT WOULD YOU GUYS BE WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON ME REINSTALLING THE DORMERS AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE OTHER STUFF OUTSIDE OF THE CHIMNEY IS KINDA NOT SEEN FROM THE STREET. MAYBE HAVING A LITTLE LENIENCY WITH ME ON THAT. WELL, I'M GONNA FINISH REAL QUICK. ARE THE WINDOWS NOT E THE WINDOWS THAT WERE INSTALLED WERE NOT EITHER THE ONES THAT WERE PROPOSED. 'CAUSE THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE TWO SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS NEXT TO EACH OTHER. TWO SETS, CORRECT. SO A TOTAL OF FOUR WINDOWS. CAN WE LOOK AT THE BACK WINDOW? THAT WAS, I JUST WANNA FINISH WITH WHAT WE STARTED HERE. AND, AND I THINK YOU'RE MISSING WINDOWS ON BOTH SIDES TOO, BECAUSE ONE SIDE'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE SIX AND THE PICTURE SHOWS FIVE. OKAY, THAT'S NEXT ONE. THAT ONE, YEAH. SO IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE TWO SINGLE WINDOWS, TWO SETS. SO IT'S ACTUALLY FOUR WINDOWS PLUS THE TWO EXTRA ONES. I MEAN, THE, MY WORRY HERE IS NOT SO MUCH WHAT HAPPENS. I MEAN, THE LOOKS AND IT'S WHAT HAS BEEN MODIFIED. I GUESS SOME OF THIS THAT IS NOT GOING WITH THE PLAN IS MORE ON THE BACKSIDE, WHICH IS THE NEWER ADDITION. CORRECT. THAT'S, SO THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY MODIFICATIONS IN FENESTRATIONS? THE LITTLE ONE, YES. THE DORMERS, I AGREE. THE CHIMNEY CAN BE RE WE'VE SEEN IT BEFORE THERE HAS BEEN RE REBUILT. I MEAN, AND THIS IS NOT TO MR. COKER. I'M ACTUALLY LOOKING AND MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO KIND OF GET A DISCUSSION GOING BETWEEN US. UM, I WILL NOTE THAT, UM, WHILE THE MODIFIED OPENING AND D BE IN A REAR EDITION, UM, MR. COKER, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE THAT PART OF THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED PLAN WAS TO, UH, REUSE, UH, EXISTING OR ORIGINAL WOOD WINDOWS WITHIN THE ADDITION. UM, SO THERE'S ALSO THE CONSIDERATION THAT THERE, THERE'S A POTENTIAL LOSS OF, UH, HISTORIC WOOD WINDOWS FROM THIS HOUSE. WELL, THAT WAS GONNA BE MY POINT, IS MR. COKER IS LIKE, EVERYTHING'S WRONG. I JUST DON'T WANT THIS HAPPENING. AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT, IT'S NOT THE FIRST PROPERTY, IT'S NOT THE LAST PROPERTY YOU'RE GONNA DO. WE GOTTA BE LIKE, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MISCOMMUNICATIONS. WHATEVER COMES OUT OF THIS COMPROMISE, IT'S WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN ALSO IN THE FUTURE. SO WE JUST REALLY GOTTA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE VERY CAREFUL WITH WHAT WE DECIDE TODAY. AND, AND I CAN, I, IF I CAN JUST SAY, I'M SORRY TO, TO INTERJECT. I, THIS WAS A COUPLE YEARS AGO AND I DON'T REMEMBER IN MY HISTORIC REHAB, UM, ACUMEN EXACTLY WHICH ONE THIS WAS, BUT I'VE LEARNED SO MUCH SINCE THEN. UM, AND NOT THAT I DIDN'T APPRECIATE THESE PROPERTIES PRIOR TO THAT, BUT, UM, I, I CAN ASSURE YOU GUYS THAT ANY OF THE PLANS ON ANY OF THIS STUFF GOING FORWARD, UH, WILL BE ADHERED TO 110%. UM, YOU KNOW, I WAS MORE OF A ROOKIE BACK THEN, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY. MM-HMM. , I HAVE SEVERAL OTHERS. I HAVE FOUR IN KING WILLIAM THAT WERE ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE DOCKET TODAY, BUT I PULLED 'EM, THEY'LL BE ON THE NEXT ONE. SO, UM, YOU WON'T SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN AGAIN. AND ACTUALLY I WAS UNAWARE OF IT. I, IN, IN ALL REALITY, WHAT I HAVE CALLED OR APPLIED FOR THE TAX CERTIFICATE, IF I EVEN THOUGHT THAT I HAD NO CLUE ABOUT ANY OF THIS STUFF. NOT TO SAY EDWARD, RIGHT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING I, IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. E EDWARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY IMAGES OF THE DORMER BEFORE IT BEING CLAD WITH PLASTIC VINYL? NOT PRIOR TO IT BEING, BEING CLAD WITH PLASTIC OR VINYL. UM, ONE THING THAT WAS PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT ABOUT THIS PROPERTY THERE, THESE ARE JUST SOME PHOTOS THAT THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE. UM, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF OVERGROWTH ON THE LOT AND SO MUCH OF THE HOUSE, THE ROOF STRUCTURE, ET CETERA, IT'S COVERED BY TREES AND WHATNOT. I HEAR YOU. 'CAUSE IT. AND, AND HOW ABOUT, UH, NEARBY HOUSES THAT HAVE THE SIM HA WOULD, WOULD HAVE A SIMILAR DORMER. DID YOU NOTICE ANY, BECAUSE THE FASCIA BOARD ON THERE IS A LITTLE WEIRD. I MEAN, IS IS THERE, ON THE PICTURE THAT'S THERE WAS, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT PERHAPS IT'S NOT EVEN AN ORIGINAL DORMER? UH, NO, BUT I MEAN, EACH HOUSE IS UNIQUE IN ITSELF. UM, ALL OF THEM WILL FEATURE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND ITEMS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STYLE. UH, BUT FOR INSTANCE, THE ORIGINAL COLUMNS ON THIS HOUSE ARE QUITE UNIQUE. UH, SO, UM, I'M NOT ABLE [03:20:01] TO SPECULATE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WITH THIS BEING NON-ORIGINAL OR ORIGINAL. UM, I DO KNOW THAT THEY'RE EXISTING AND THEY WERE REMOVED WITHOUT APPROVAL. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. EDWARD, THIS IS COMMISSIONER. YEAH, THIS IS, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER. UM, I'M INCLINED TO, UM, AGREE WITH STAFF ON ALL THESE STIPULATIONS. UH, THE CHIMNEY COULD BE REBUILT AND SUPPORTED IN THE ATTIC. YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BRING IT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR. THAT HAS BEEN DONE NUMEROUS TIMES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS. UM, THE DORMERS WERE EXISTING. IF, IF IT HAD BEEN DETERMINED DURING CONSTRUCTION THAT THESE DORMERS WERE NOT ORIGINAL, THEN THAT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING TO HAVE BEEN REVISITED. BUT SINCE, UH, THAT EVIDENCE ISN'T THERE, I'M INCLINED TO AGREE WITH STAFF THAT, THAT THE DORMERS ALSO NEED TO GO BACK. AND THEN THE FACT THAT, UM, EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THEM FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, UM, THE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS HAD ALL THE FENESTRATION. I'M INCLINED TO, UM, AGREE WITH STAFF ON ALL OF THIS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER SAVINO, UH, COMM, UH, CHAIR CHAIRMAN FETZER, YOU STOLE MY THUNDER ON THE CHIMNEY. UM, MR. COKER, YOUR JOB IN REBUILDING THE CHIMNEY IS ACTUALLY MUCH EASIER NOW THAT IT'S GONE. YOU CAN, UH, RETROFIT THAT STRUCTURE IN THE ATTIC, BUILD YOUR PLATFORM, AND BUILD YOUR CHIMNEY, UNLIKE OTHER APPLICANTS WHO, UM, HAVE TO SUPPORT IT IN SITU. SO I WOULD BE VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF, UM, STAFF STIPULATIONS ON ALL OF THE ITEMS. YOU'VE DONE A NICE JOB, MR. COKER, IN CLEARING OFF THE LOT, ESPECIALLY FROM THE FRONT. SO ALL OF THOSE ARCHITECTURALLY CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS NEED TO BE THERE. THANK YOU. THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I, I CONCUR WITH THAT. I THINK PARTICULARLY WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH THESE SORT OF VERY SIMPLE VERNACULAR, UH, TYPE OF STRUCTURES, WHEN THOSE FEW CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES START GOING AWAY, IT DOES HAVE A BIG IMPACT. UM, SO I WOULD, UH, CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS. SO IF I BUILT THE, IF I REBUILT THE DORMERS IN THE, THE CHIMNEY, COULD WE, UH, COMPROMISE THERE AND SAY THAT WE'RE GOOD TO GO? I'VE NEVER REBUILT THE CHIMNEY, SO I DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS EVEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND. BUT NOW THAT YOU GUYS SAY THAT, I HAVE HOPE, YES, WE'VE, WE'VE, UH, ENCOUNTERED THAT IN PREVIOUS CASES WHERE THEY WANTED TO RECONFIGURE THE INTERIOR PLAN, UH, AND THERE WAS A FLU OR A CHIMNEY THAT WAS IN PLACE. BUT TO KEEP THE PROFILE, THE EXTERIOR PROFILE OF THE HOUSE INTACT AND BASICALLY PUTTING SOME, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME STRUCTURE UP IN THE, IN THE ATTIC TO SUPPORT IT. AND OFTEN THAT'S IN THE CASE OF, YOU KNOW, ANGLE IRON AND WHAT HAVE YOU. THAT'S, UH, BRACED IN WITH THE ROOF STRUCTURE. UM, OKAY. YES. AND SINCE YOU HAVE, UM, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER AGAIN, SINCE YOU HAVE A GOOD PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CHIMNEY, YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT THE DETAIL IS ON IT. SO, UM, I THINK YOU COULD RECONSTRUCT THAT WITH, UM, EITHER THE SAME BRICK OR, UM, SIMILAR BREAK. AND, UH, BUT KEEPING THE, THE DETAILING ON THAT CHIMNEY THAT SHOWS IN THIS, UH, HISTORIC PHOTO AND THE, AND THE DORMERS CAN SOLVE A, YOU KNOW, A, A FUNCTIONAL PROBLEM OF, OF VENTILATING THE, THE ATTIC EFFECTIVELY. SO UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE MOTION, PLEASE, I, I'D LIKE TO GET A CLARIFICATION ON. SO THEN WHAT ARE THE, WHAT WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE CHIMNEY? W COULD YOU REMIND ME? WAS THAT SOMETHING WITH THE CONTRACTOR? UH, NO, THAT WAS ME. UM, SO I DID GIVE HIM AUTHORIZATION TO REMOVE THE CHIMNEY. WE WANTED TO KEEP IT AS A DESIGN ELEMENT, UM, IN THE LIVING ROOM, HOWEVER, A LOT OF THE BRICK WAS, UM, FLAKING OFF AND, UH, KIND OF DISINTEGRATING. SO, UH, WE KEPT THE BRICK THAT WE COULD, WE USED IT AS A WALKWAY AT ANOTHER HISTORICAL PROPERTY OF MINE. UM, BUT IT WAS JUST DILAPIDATED. AND IN ORDER FOR ME TO, TO USE IT AS A DESIGN ELEMENT, I WAS GONNA HAVE TO WRAP IT, WHICH THEN KIND OF DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF EVEN, I MEAN, IT TAKES THE CHARM COMPLETELY AWAY FROM IT, YOU KNOW, BUT IT'S GONE FROM BOTTOM ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP. YEAH. THE BOTTOM, TOP, YEP. ENTIRETY. YEP. OKAY. AND THANK YOU MR. COKER MI, MR. CHAIR. MM-HMM. , I, I JUST FOR CONSIDERATION OF, OF, UM, A KIND OF A FAKE, UM, CHIMNEY TOP FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACHIEVING ANYTHING OTHER THAN A CHIMNEY. I THINK THE, THE, THE OVERALL PA PACKAGE WITH [03:25:01] PARTICULAR IN RESPECT TO DORMERS AND WINDOWS, THAT, THAT THE END RESULT REMAINS A TRUE STATEMENT. AND THE, THE VALIDITY OF THE TRUE STATEMENT, ALL THE ARCHITECTURE SHOULD BE A TRUE STATEMENT. THE, THE LOSS OF THE CHIMNEY, IF IT WAS THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A CHIMNEY AS A WHOLE, I, I THINK WOULDN'T, UM, WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF, OF THE MATURITY, RIGHT, OF, OF THE MISTAKE, THE MATURITY OF THE, OF THE, OF THE, OF WHAT CREATED THE PROBLEM, BUT ALSO THE MATURITY OF, OF, OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE EXPECTATION THAT, THAT SOMEONE DRIVING BY 70 YEARS FROM NOW SHOULD SEE A TRUE STATEMENT THAT PERHAPS THE CHIMNEY IS A CONSEQUENCE. THAT IT'S NOT THAT, THAT, THAT THE REAL LESSON ISN'T, THAT IT'S JUST CONSEQUENTIAL TO THIS OWNER, BUT IT'S CONSEQUENTIAL TO US AS WELL, AND TO THE PROCESS AS A WHOLE, RIGHT? THAT IT'S A CONSEQUENCE, THE LOSS. BUT, BUT CREATING A LIE IN THE ARCHITECTURAL STATEMENT, IT, IT CHALLENGES OUR INTEGRITY AS, AS A WHOLE. YOU KNOW, SO I, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT IF, IF, IF HE CAN REVERSE THE MAJORITY OF ALL OF THE, THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THAT, THAT, THAT GO COUNTER TO WHAT WAS APPROVED OR WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED, THAT WE FOREGO, UH, HAVING A FAKE CHIMNEY ON THIS BUILDING. UH, AND JUST, JUST IN RESPONSE TO OUR OBLIGATION TO THE TRUTH IN ARCHITECTURE. SO SOUND, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PRACTICE, UM, SOMETIMES REQUIRES RECONSTRUCTION OF LOST ELEMENTS, RIGHT? AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN INVALID PURSUIT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO, UH, RECAPTURE, YOU KNOW, THE CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES OF THE BUILDING THAT HAD BEEN REMOVED. OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD'VE BEEN PREFERRED FOR HIM TO HAVE LEFT IT IN PLACE. AND IF HE NEEDED TO CHANGE THE, THE PLAN, YOU KNOW, DO THE PROPER BRACING TO REMOVE, UH, A, A, A FIREPLACE OR A FLUE THAT'S IN, IN THE WAY. BUT, UM, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND, YOU KNOW, A, A WAY OF MAKING LEMONADES OUTTA LEMON HERE. AND, UM, UH, THAT'S JUST ONE, ONE PROPOSAL THAT I THINK OUR COMMISSIONERS MAKING HERE IS A, IS TO RECONSTRUCT A LAW. SO, MR. VICE, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ON INTER ON INTEGRITY 'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT. THANK YOU, SIR. I'M GONNA TRY MOTION, BUT I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE HOW I UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION IS CONSIDERING THE FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS. CAN, CAN I SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE, THE, THOSE MODIFICATIONS? SO WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE REAR FACADE, THE LOSS OF ORIGINAL HISTORIC WINDOWS. I SEE ONE FOR SURE, AND THEN THE SMALL ONE ON THE SIDE, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN THAT THE, UM, THAT THERE WERE TWO WINDOWS. SEE WHERE THAT LITTLE OUTHOUSE KIND OF IS, OR WHATEVER IT IS, ADDITION BACK THERE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE TOOK AWAY ANY ORIGINAL . UH, THE, THE PLANS, THE RENDERINGS THAT I SUBMITTED, I FULL WHOLEHEARTEDLY UNDERSTAND THAT. UM, BUT I AM NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF, YOU KNOW. OKAY. SO MR. KIRKER, WHAT YOU MEAN IS, SO THE PLANS ARE SHOWING THAT THESE FOUR WINDOWS THAT WERE ON THE BACK, THE PLANS SHOW FOUR WINDOWS THAT YOU WERE GONNA REUSE THOSE IN THE EXTENSION. DID YOU DO AN EXTENSION OUT? YES. OH NO, WE DID. YEAH, WE DID AN ADDITION, BUT I DON'T, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE THERE, LIKE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THAT, THE PROPOSED TWO WINDOWS ON THE RIGHT SIDE. BUT I'M, MY POINT IS THAT I DON'T THINK WHEN WE, WHEN WE PRIOR TO DOING THE EXTENSION, THAT THE EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL HAD THOSE TWO WINDOWS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT OBVIOUS WHATEVER TERRIBLE ADDITION THEY HAD ON THERE PRIOR, I GUESS IS MY POINT. DRAWINGS SHOW IT. YOUR DRAWINGS SHOW IT. SO WE'RE ASSUMING THAT YOUR DRAWINGS WERE CORRECT. SO IF YOU GO BACK TO THE DRAWINGS, EDWARD, YEAH. SO YOUR DRAWINGS RIGHT THERE, ONE BACK ELISE SHOWS THE TWO ON THE LEFT. SO I'M NOT WORRIED. CORRECT. WE DON'T, THAT'S, HOW DO WE REVERSE THAT? BECAUSE THESE, THAT'S A BIG REVERSAL AND, AND THE ONE WINDOW THAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW IS NOT EVEN ONE OF THE TWO. I MEAN, DO WE MAKE THE APPLICANT ADD FOUR WINDOWS? IS THAT WHAT YOU WANNA DO? AND THE LITTLE ONE THAT WAS REMOVED IT WHEN YOU TO COMMISSIONER SAVINO AND, AND, AND MY VICE CHAIR AND THE CHAIR THAT ALL SAID THAT STAFF HAD A RIGHT. I'M JUST WANTING, WANTING TO KNOW THAT. I WILL SAY THAT, UM, MY EYE WANTS TO SEE THE TWO ON EITHER SIDE FLANKING THE BACK DOOR. AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE WHEN THIS ADDITION WAS PUT ON, IT WAS NOT, AND I DON'T, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE, THE PROCESS THAT GAVE US [03:30:01] THE ADDITION IN TERMS OF THIS COMMISSION, BUT THE ADDITION THAT EXTENDED THE BACK OF THE BUILDING WAS NOT DISTINCT FROM THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. THERE'S NO INSET, THERE'S NO TRIM BOARD, THERE'S NOTHING SHOWING A TRANSITION OF A MAIN HOUSE. AND THE ADDITION, THEREFORE MY EYE READS IT AS AN ENTIRE ALMOST ORIGINAL HOUSE. SO MY EYE WANTS TO SEE A SIMILAR PATTERN WITH THE WINDOWS RHYTHM OF OPENINGS AND SIZES. SO THAT'S WHY, UM, I FEEL LIKE AT LEAST ON THE BACK FACE, THOSE TWO FLANK FLANKING WINDOWS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BACK DOOR, UM, SHOULD BE, UM, PLACED AS DESIGNED AND APPROVED. CORRECT. AND I, I, I WOULD CONCUR AS APPROVED AND AS SUBMITTED, HOWEVER, I KNOW YOU GUYS HOW YOUR EYE WOULD SEE IT. NONE OF Y'ALL ARE GONNA SEE IT. YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE IN MY BACKYARD. NO ONE'S GONNA BE IN MY BACKYARD, YOU KNOW? AND SO I'M ASKING THAT IN LIEU OF THOSE, WHICH THE, THE PREVIOUS, UM, THE PRIORITY, UH, THE ORIGINAL DRAWING FROM MY ARCHITECTURE FIRM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NOT TWO WINDOWS ON THE ONE SIDE. SO WE LOST ONE. UM, IF, IF GOING BY WHAT THIS IS SHOWING IS ACCURATE. UH, SO WE LOST ONE ON THE BACKSIDE AND THEN ONE THE SMALL ONE ON THE SIDE. AND CAN WE COMPROMISE TO WHERE I PUT THE DORMS BACK ON, PUT THE CHIMNEY BACK ON, AND LOU OF, I CAN'T PUT TWO WINDOWS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, UH, THE NORTHERN, I GUESS SIDE OF THIS BECAUSE, UH, THERE'S A BATHROOM THERE, UH, THERE'S A SHOWER ON THAT SIDE OF THE WALL. IT, THERE'S JUST NO CHANCE I CAN DO IT. THE VANITY, THE MIRROR, THE TOILET IS ON THE BACKSIDE OF THAT WALL. I CAN'T PUT ANY, ANY WINDOWS THERE, BUT I CAN, WHAT I CAN DO IS DO THE DORMERS AND THE CHIMNEY, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT'S VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. UM, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD 70 YEARS FROM NOW, WHAT IS SOMEONE GONNA SEE? THAT'S ALL THEY'RE GONNA SEE. THEY'RE NOT GONNA SEE THE REAR OF THE HOUSE AND THE WINDOWS BACK THERE ALL DUE RESPECT. I UNDERSTAND. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING AND THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN. I AM NOT DENYING THAT, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO GET OUT OF IT. IT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW. BUT I AM WILLING, THE STUFF THAT I CAN DO, I AM WILLING TO DO THAT. UM, SO I JUST ASK FOR A TINY BIT OF LENIENCY IN THAT REGARD. MR. COKER, UH, QUICK QUESTION. AND UM, YOU KNOW, IN CONSIDERATION OF OF TIME AND UM, UH, FUTURE MOTION MAKING, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY ONE THING THAT'S OF CONCERN, UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BEFORE PHOTOS ARE WOOD WINDOWS THAT WERE WITHIN THE HOUSE. UM, WERE ANY OF THE EXISTING WOOD WINDOWS THAT ARE SHOWN HERE THAT WERE TO BE REUSED DISCARDED? I DON'T RECALL, BUT ALL OF MY WINDOWS ARE WOOD. THEY'RE ALL THE SINGLE PANE, UH, HISTORIC WINDOWS. THERE'S NOT ANY AFTERMARKET OR NEW UPDATED WINDOWS ON THE PROPERTY. OKAY. WITH A QUAD, I GUESS, OR LIGHT, BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT THE REST OF THEM ARE TOO. RIGHT? I'LL, I'LL, I WILL SAY THAT STAFF DURING THE SITE VISIT OBSERVED THAT WINDOWS, INCLUDING THOSE THAT WERE WITHIN THE ADDITION WERE HISTORIC OR WOOD, WOOD, WOOD WINDOWS. UM, I THINK ONE THING THAT'S IMPORTANT IS, UH, WHETHER OR NOT WOOD WINDOWS WERE DISCARDED. UM, AND UM, I, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE ADDITION AND, UH, MODIFICATIONS TO FENESTRATION, THAT'S A BIT DIFFICULT TO DECIDE. UM, BUT, UH, HIGHLY UNLIKELY, SIMPLY ASKING. I'LL TELL YOU, JUST BECAUSE I REHAB SO MANY HISTORIC PROPERTIES, THOSE WINDOWS ARE EXTREMELY VALUABLE. I WOULD NEVER GET RID OF ONE. I MEAN, I NEED SEVERAL OF 'EM RIGHT NOW OVER IN KING WILLIAMS. SO, UH, WE HAVE A STORAGE ROOM WITH ALL KIND OF HISTORIC DOORS WITH THE, I MEAN, I HAVE A TON OF HISTORIC STUFF. I DON'T THROW ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE AWAY, THAT'S FOR SURE. SO QUESTION MR. COKER. MM-HMM. , UM, CAN YOU PUT TWO WINDOWS ON THE REAR FACADE TO THE LEFT OF THE DOOR SIMILAR TO THE, UM, WHAT YOU'VE DRAWN HERE, AND THEN PUT THE LITTLE WINDOW BACK ON THE, WHATEVER THAT IS, THE SOUTH FACADE, THE, THE REAR, UM, TO MAKE IT THE TWO ON THAT ONE SIDE? I MAY BE ABLE TO ADD THE SECOND ONE. THE SMALL WINDOW? NO, BECAUSE THAT'S A SHOWER. THAT'S WHY WE TOOK THAT ONE OUT. I MEAN, I CAN PUT A FAUX WINDOW UP MAYBE THAT THAT'S, YOU GUYS HAVE APPROVED, YOU GUYS HAVE APPROVED FO [03:35:01] YEAH. YEAH, WE HAVE DONE THAT BE BEFORE WHEN SOMEONE IS PUTTING A, UH, SOME FUNCTION ON THE INTERIOR. YEAH. THAT THEY, WE, UM, HAVE APPROVED DRYWALLING THE INTERIOR, BUT LEAVING THE WINDOW ON THE EXTERIOR. CORRECT. AND I HAVE DONE THAT AT OTHER PROPERTIES, SO I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN WHY WE DID THAT, WHY WE TOOK THAT ONE OUT HERE. BUT I, I'D HAVE TO SAY IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU COULDN'T SEE IT FROM THE STREET AND IT WOULDN'T BE, UM, AN ISSUE. SO THAT'S A MISTAKE ON MY BEHALF. BUT, UM, TO, I HAVE DONE THAT, UH, SEVERAL OF MY PROPERTIES HAVE, UH, THE WINDOWS JUST LEFT THERE AND WE'VE FILLED THE INSIDE OF 'EM. SO I, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCEDURE. OKAY. I'M GONNA TRY A MOTION. THANK YOU. UH, LET ME GET TO THE, SEE JEFF, YOU NEVER GET TO CRAFT MOTIONS. THIS IS YOUR CHANCE. I KNOW. FIND THIS, THIS IS GONNA BE THE GOLDEN MOTION HERE FOR THE DAY. IF I CAN FIND THE, THE RECOMMENDATIONS, HERE WE GO. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, UM, I MOVE THAT THE TAX CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION, UH, NOT APPROVED AT THIS TIME UNTIL THE, THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS ARE RESOLVED. UM, ONE THAT THE, THE ORIGINAL ROOF ELEMENTS, THE DORMER AND THE BRICK CHIMNEY BE RECONSTRUCTED. TWO, THAT THE, UH, THREE DORMERS BE RECONSTRUCTED. SO SORT OF A REPEAT, UH, NUMBER THREE, UH, THAT THE BRICK CHIMNEY BE RECONSTRUCTED. NUMBER FOUR, THAT THE ORIGINAL WINDOW OPENING ON THE, THE SMALL WINDOW OPENING ON THE SOUTH SIDE BE REINSTATED. AND THAT ON THE REAR FACADE THAT A SECOND WINDOW BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO THE WINDOW THAT'S BEEN INSTALLED ALREADY. THAT'S MY MOTION. ALRIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT, BUT I WANNA SEE IF MR. FETZER COULD CLARIFY ONE PIECE ON THE WINDOW. OKAY. THAT THE YES, THAT THE WINDOW BE CONSISTENT WITH, UH, IN DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL WINDOW ILLUSTRATED IN THE PICTURE THAT'S BEFORE. SO OTHERWISE HE'S NOT GONNA KNOW HOW FAR APART THE WINDOWS GO, HOW CLOSE TO THE CORNER THEY GO. HE MAY HAVE TO MOVE THE ONE THAT'S THERE. RIGHT? SO YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE REAR, THAT PICTURE ADDING THE SECOND WINDOW THERE. THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S THE PICTURE HE'S TALKING. I MEAN THE WINDOW HE'S TALKING ABOUT. YES. IF HE THAT THE YES, I'LL AMEND IT THAT THE TWO REAR WINDOWS BE, UH, SPACED AS THEY ARE SHOWN IN THIS HISTORIC PHOTO. SECOND STILL. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE CLARIFICATION IN A SECOND THEN. UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NONE HAD. SO WE'LL DO ROLL CALL PLEASE, GIBBS. AYE FISH IS, UM, ABSENT SINO. AYE. VELAZQUEZ AYE. OLA? AYE. MASUKA? AYE. CARPENTER? AYE. GRO AYE. BOWMAN IS ABSENT. FETZER AYE. AND LA? I DON'T KNOW. HE'S WITH US LEFT. BOONE HAS LEFT THE MEETING. AND MOTION PASSES. ALRIGHT, SO MOTION PASSES AND MY GRATITUDE TO THE CHAIRMAN FOR CRAFTING THAT. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE [Items 13 (Part 2 of 2) & 16 (Part 2 of 2)] TWO CASES THAT WE TABLED. HAVE EITHER OF THOSE HAVE, UH, AN APPLICANT TRANSPIRE SHOW I'VE, I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM, UM, FROM 32 15 ROOSEVELT. UM, AND I HAVE LEFT A VOICEMAIL AND SENT AN EMAIL. UM, SO I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY THEY'RE NOT ATTENDING. MOTION. OKAY, MOTION. SO MOTION. MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY WE DON'T HEAR CASES IF THE APPLICANT ISN'T HERE TO, UM, TO ARGUE THE CASE. BUT IF ANYONE WISHES TO DISCUSS THEM, WE CAN MOTION TO TABLE ITEM 13 AND 16. OKAY, SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR TABLING? ITEM 13 AND 16 SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND TO TO TABLE ITEMS. 13, 16. MAY WE HAVE ROLL CALL PLEASE? JUST A SECOND. ARE YOU UH, WANTING TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION TO A DATE CERTAIN OR FOR THE NEXT MEETING? IS THAT NEXT AVAILABLE, NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING? ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE CLARIFICATION FROM OUR LEGAL COUNSEL TO POSTPONE ITEMS 13 AND 16 TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING. DO OUR SECOND CONCUR? YES. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION [03:40:01] AND A SECOND ROLL CALL PLEASE. GIBBS A ONE MORE TIME. GIBBS AYE. VICIOUS ABSENT. AYE. UM, VELAZQUEZ? AYE. OLA. AYE. MASUKA. AYE. CARPENTER. AYE. GROUP. AYE. BOWMAN, ABSENT. FETZER. AYE. EZ ABSENT. AND MOTION PASSES. DID WE ALREADY UH, PASS THE MINUTES? I BELIEVE WE DID. MOTION TO ADUR. OKAY. MOTION TO ADJOURN PLEASE. WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE, AYE. THANK YOU ALL. APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.