* 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 WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7TH, 2020. [Roll Call] MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE? FERNANDEZ FISH. HERE. GIBBS. HERE. VELASQUEZ. HERE. AREOLA HERE. CARPENTER. HERE. CHAIR ROMAN BETTS, SIR. HERE, LA HERE WE HAVE A QUORUM. UM, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, WE DO HAVE A BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING TRANSLATION SERVICES. I THANK YOU. WE PLEASE [Chairman’s Statement] HAVE THE CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT. THE HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION IS AN ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I'M JEFFREY FETZER, CHAIRMAN, AND THE VICE CHAIR IS SCOTT CARPENTER. IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION TO ADVISE THE CITY MANAGER AND ALL RELEVANT CITY DEPARTMENTS CONCERNING ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS FOR PROPERTIES AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS FOR LANDMARKS ON CITY PROPERTY IN THE RIVER IMPROVEMENT OVERLAY AND FOR DEMOLITIONS. AND CONSIDERING WHETHER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, THE COMMISSION SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CAN BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN WATCH THIS MEETING THROUGH LIVESTREAM. THEY CAN ALSO LISTEN TO THE MEETING THROUGH AUDIO ONLY BY CALLING 2 1 0 2 0 6 5 4 8 3 IN ENGLISH OR IN SPANISH. THE MEETING IS BEING RECORDED IN SPANISH FOR THOSE APPLICANTS OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT REQUIRES TRANSLATION SERVICES. THE INTERPRETER WILL TRANSLATE OVER THE PHONE AS NECESSARY IN AN EFFORT TO HEAR ALL THE CASES ON THE AGENDA, AS WELL AS TO MINIMIZE THE LENGTH OF THE MEETING. APPLICANTS WILL BE, WILL NEED TO SUMMARIZE THEIR STATEMENTS AND BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION EACH HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO MINUTES FOR THEIR COMMENTS, AND EACH COMMISSIONER WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS REGARDING EACH APPLICATION. APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION DOES NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF ANY TYPE OF PERMIT. PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ALL WORK. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR WORK APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE EMAILED TO YOU WITHIN 10 DAYS. NO WORK OF ANY TYPE IS TO BE STARTED WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROPRIATE CITY PERMITS AFTER A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AT THIS TIME, I'LL ASK O H P STAFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TODAY'S MEETING. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, LET'S GO AHEAD AND PULL UP THE CASE LIST FOR TODAY. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE 30 CASES ON THE AGENDA. 18 ARE SCHEDULED FOR CONSENT. UM, WE DO HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING ITEM 20. UM, THAT ITEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED TODAY. UH, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS FOR ITEM 20. UM, [Public Comments] SO THAT BRINGS US TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FOR ITEMS ON CONSENT. I WILL READ THOSE AT THIS TIME. UM, JUST ALSO A REMINDER, YOU DO HAVE A COUPLE OF LETTERS IT APPEARS THAT ARE IN YOUR PACKETS THAT WILL NOT BE READ. UM, SO WE HAVE, UM, LETTERS OF SUPPORT, UM, SUBMITTED BY SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL RESIDENTS IN THE DI DUTY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, THAT'S ITEMS TWO, SIX, AND 17. THE COMMENT IS SIMPLY WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THOSE ITEMS. UM, FOR ITEM NUMBER 10, UM, WE HAVE PAUL KINISON, FOUR 18 WEST FRENCH PLACE. MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCI ASSOCIATION. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE C O A APPLICATION TO INSTALL SOLAR ROOF PANELS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, ONE SOUTHERN SOLAR PANELS WILL BE VISIBLE FROM WEST FRENCH AND BELKNAP STREETS. SEE PHOTOS. OH, AND LORI, WE DO HAVE PHOTOS. IF WE CAN PUT THOSE ON THE SCREEN. WE'LL GET THOSE LOADED WHILE WE MADE. OKAY, THERE WE GO. UM, SO ONE SOUTHERN SOLAR PANELS WILL BE VISIBLE FROM WEST FRENCH AND MEAB STREETS. UM, TWO, ONE OF THE MOST PHOTOGRAPHED HOUSES IN MONTE VISTA. THREE. THE ROOF IS CLASSIC HISTORIC STANDING SCENE, METAL ROOF PAINTED HISTORIC PLUM RED. FOUR SOLAR PANELS WILL DESTROY AND DAMAGE HISTORIC ASPECTS AND CHARACTER OF THIS HISTORIC HOUSE. FIVE O H P STAFF STIPULATION REQUIRES SOLAR PANELS MAINTAIN 18 INCHES FROM ROOF [00:05:01] EAVES AND RIDGES. WE RECOMMEND NILE UNTIL REVISED ROOF PLAN IS SUBMITTED FOR H C R C APPROVAL THAT MEETS THIS REQUIREMENT AND INDICATES THAT THE SOLAR PANELS CANNOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE ADJACENT STREETS. THE CURRENT PLAN INDICATES 37 SOLAR PANELS WITHIN 18 INCHES OF EAVES AND RIDGES. MONTE VISTA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE C O A APPLICATION FOR THE REASONS STATED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL. THE SECOND COMES FROM CLAY HAAGEN 1 28 WEST FRENCH PLACE. AS A NEARBY NEIGHBOR, I'M OPPOSED TO THIS AGENDA ITEM AS PROPOSED SINCE THE SOLAR PANELS ON THE STEEP PORTION OF THE ROOF, HISTORIC ROOF WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE WEST FRENCH PLACE, PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. UM, FRANK GARCIA, ONE 10 WEST FRENCH PLACE. I'M OPPOSED TO ANY SOLAR PANELS INSTALLED ON THIS ROOF. IT'LL BE VISIBLE FROM STREETS FURTHER AWAY THAN DEPICTED DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOS ON THE EXHIBIT. SOLAR PANELS DO NOT BELONG ON THE ROOF OF THIS HOME BUILT IN 1910. UM, AND TONY GARCIA, 2 43 EAST SATCH. A PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF 86 SOLAR PANELS ON EIGHT DISTINCT ROOF LOCATIONS WITH VARIOUS ROOF PITCHES AS A HODGEPODGE HODGE DESIGN THAT LACKS ALL SERIOUS CONSIDERATION WITH THE AESTHETIC PRESENCE AND THE SHORT SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS 1910 NEO CLASS CO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS ON THIS STRUCTURE IS AKIN TO USING DUCT TAPE ON A 1910 BUGATTI. WE JUST DON'T DO IT. FURTHERMORE, THE PROPOSED USE OF VEGETATION SUCH AS TREES IS NOT SUITABLE SOLUTION AND MINIMIZING VISIBILITY OF THE SOLAR PANELS FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DEFOLIATION DURING SEASONAL CHANGES. TREE TRIMMING AND OR TREE REMOVAL WOULD MAKE THE SOLAR PANELS ON THE EAST AND WEST ROOF LINES VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. FOR THE, FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COMMISSION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR FOUR 15 WEST FRENCH PLACE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. UM, AND THAT IS ALL THE COMMENTS WE [CONSENT AGENDA] HAVE. UM, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WISH TO PULL ITEMS FROM CONSENT FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? UH, THIS IS, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER. I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM TEN FOUR FIFTEEN WEST FRENCH FOR DISCUSSION A. ANY OTHERS A MOTION? UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL FOR ONE THROUGH NINE AND 11 THROUGH 18 WITH STAFF. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I SECOND. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. UM, ALL IN FAVOR? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAYYY. MOTION PASSES. [10. 20-5918 Address/Description: 415 W FRENCH PLACE HDRC Case No.: 2020-407 Historic District Name: Monte Vista Applicant: Stephanie Botello Request: Solar panel installation City Council Dist.: 1] OKAY. UM, WE ARE READY TO REVIEW ITEM 10, AND I BELIEVE STEPHANIE DOES HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE LINE. STEPH, ARE YOU THERE? YES. YES, I'M HERE AND I HAVE THE APPLICANT ALSO NAMED STEPHANIE ON THE LINE. STEPHANIE, DO YOU WANNA INTRODUCE YOURSELF? HI, UH, THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME. MY NAME'S STEPHANIE. I'M THE OPERATIONS MANAGER WITH SPHERE INNOVATION. UM, WE'VE BEEN DOING SOLAR IN THE AREA FOR, UM, 10 YEARS, SO I GUESS I'M, I'M READY FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE. THIS IS, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER. I PULLED IT OFF FOR SOME QUESTIONS. UH, IF WE COULD GO TO THE, UH, ROOF PLAN, PV 1.1. THAT ONE. UM, I SHARE SOME OF THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT, UH, THE PANELS ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND THE WEST OF THE HOUSE, WHICH ARE, WHICH I BELIEVE WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. UM, I SEE THAT THERE'S A SECTION OF THE ROOF TOWARDS THE REAR, UH, THAT WASN'T USED FOR SOLAR PANELS THAT, UH, ONE GABLE THAT HAS A EAST FACING, UH, SLOPE. UM, PLUS JUST WONDERING WHY THERE'S SO MANY SOLAR PANELS ON THE FRONT. SURE. SO THAT WHOLE AREA ON THE, THE REAR OF THE HOME THAT YOU'RE SEEING THAT ARE DON'T HAVE ANY PANELS TO THE LEFT OF THAT, YOU'RE GONNA SEE A VERY LARGE TREE. UM, AND IT'S PROBABLY SATELLITE IMAGE TAKEN DURING THE WINTER. UM, SO IN THE SUMMERTIME, THAT TREE IS VERY LARGE AND WOULD SHADE ALL OF THOSE PANELS, WHICH WOULD DUE THE, THE HOMEOWNER, UM, YOU KNOW, NEARLY NO GOOD AT ALL. IT WOULD JUST BE KIND OF A WASTE OF MONEY. AND THEN, UM, WHY SO MANY SOLAR PANELS ARE BEING PROPOSED. SO THE, THE WHOLE POINT THAT WE TRY TO DO IS OF COURSE, OFFSET THE HOMEOWNER'S BILL. UM, HIS BILL IS UPWARDS, YOU KNOW, OF, OF [00:10:01] 400 PLUS DOLLARS DEPENDING ON THE TIME OF YEAR. UM, SO OUR MAIN OBJECTIVE, OF COURSE IS TO BE AS GREEN AS POSSIBLE AND TO PULL ALL, ALL OF HIS UTILITIES OR ALL OF HIS, UM, OR A GOOD CHUNK OF HIS ENERGY FROM THE ACTUAL SOLAR VERSUS THE ENERGY GRID. WELL, I SEE THAT THERE'S A GARAGE BUILDING OR AN OUTBUILDING AN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. DOES THAT ALREADY HAVE SOLAR PANELS ON IT? IT DOES NOT. DOES THAT STRUCTURE ALLOW FOR SOLAR PANELS SO THAT SOME OF THE ONES ON THE MAIN HOUSE COULD BE REMOVED? IT'S NOT. UM, SO IN SOME CASES IF A STRUCTURE'S NOT SOUND, IT CAN'T HOLD THE WEIGHT OF SOLAR PANELS. SO, UM, EVEN IF WE COULD, THE ENGINEER THAT WE HAVE, OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO STAMP IT AND SAY THAT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HOLD THE WEIGHT AND NOT CONCAVE THE STRUCTURE. OKAY. AND THEN ONE LAST QUESTION. IN ORDER FOR THE, YOUR PROPOSED LAYOUT, ARE YOU GONNA HAVE TO TRIM ANY TREES SO THAT YOUR PROPOSED PANELS GET FULL SUN? UM, LEMME JUST PULL, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THAT ON HOUSES BEFORE MM-HMM. WHERE THEY PUT IN PANELS AND BECAUSE THE TREE GREW OR, UH, THEY DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TREE, THEY ENDED UP CHOPPING THE TREE DOWN OR, OR TRIMMING IT DRASTICALLY SO THEN THE PANELS ARE MORE VISIBLE. SURE. UM, SO THERE'S ONE TREE, UM, THAT WE'LL JUST TAKE A LITTLE BIT OFF THE TOP. UM, IT'S NOT A REMOVAL OR EVEN HALF REMOVAL, UM, OR, OR EVEN THREEQUARTER REMOVAL. IT'S LITERALLY JUST A FEW AT THE TOP. AND THEN THERE'S, UM, ONE VERY SMALL TREE THAT'S IN FRONT OF HIS ELECTRICAL PANEL, WHICH IS BEHIND HIS HOUSE. SO WOULDN'T EVEN BE NOTICEABLE BY ANYONE. OKAY. AND ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS THAT NO PANEL'S CLOSER THAN 18 INCHES? YEAH. YEAH, WE DO THAT FOR ALL OUR DESIGNS, UH, PER FIRE CODE. OKAY. NO MORE QUESTIONS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. UM, THE, THE EXHIBIT ON THE SCREEN IS SHOWING THE SOLAR PANELS GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE VE ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM FOR AN 18 INCH STEP BACK FROM THE VES AS WELL? CORRECT. SO, UM, THE WAY WE HAVE TO DO IT IS IT'S NOT AS DRAWN TO SCALE AS IT'S TOO HARD TO DRAW FROM SCALE ON A SATELLITE IMAGE. WELL, I, I GUESS MY, BUT YEAH, I MEAN, MY QUESTION, THERE'S A SCALE ISSUE HERE AND THAT THE SOLAR PANELS WOULD HAVE TO BE DRAWN IN A LARGER SIZE THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE TO FIT ON THIS ROOF. RIGHT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE EXHIBIT, THE SOLAR PANELS ARE OUT OF SCALE. RIGHT. THERE'S REALLY NO WAY TO, UM, I MEAN, I GUESS THERE'S A WAY, BUT WE JUST HAVE OUR LAYOUT, WHICH WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, REALLY CLOSE TO WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE, UM, WITHOUT SHOWING THE EXACT MEASUREMENTS OR THAT YOU COULD VISIBLY SEE WITH YOUR EYE TO BE 18 INCHES. OKAY. I'M GONNA, I MIGHT REPEAT A FEW QUESTIONS THE CHAIRMAN ASKED JUST TO FOLLOW UP MM-HMM. , UM, THE, IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, UM, THERE'S A, A LARGE TREE, UM, TO THE SOUTH OF THAT KINDA LEG THAT RUNS OUT THAT APPEARS TO BE SHADING THAT ROOF. IS THAT ONE OF THE TREES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NEEDS TO BE TRIMMED BACK? YEAH, THAT RIGHT WHERE THE CURSOR IS, THAT ONE? I'M SORRY, I DON'T SEE YOUR, THE CURSOR. UM, YEAH, THERE'S GONNA BE A DELAY ON YOUR END. I'M SORRY. OH, OKAY. THAT'S OKAY. I THINK IT'S ABOUT CORY CORRECT ME ABOUT 10 SECONDS. YEAH, SO WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE STREET VIEW RIGHT NOW. SO IT'S THE TREE THAT'S TO THE LEFT OF THE PORCH. OH, OKAY. UM, NO, THAT IS NOT, THAT IS NOT THE TREE. OKAY. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE, WELL, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PLAN NOW. CAN YOU KIND OF GUIDE US OF EACH ONE? IT'S, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT THAT TREE IS GONNA BE SHADING THE SOUTHERN SUN, AT LEAST IN THE WINTER. I CAN SEE HOW SOME OF THOSE PANELS MIGHT BE EFFECTIVE UN UNLESS THE, THE TOP IS REALLY TAKEN DOWN, BUT I MIGHT BE MISJUDGING THE HEIGHT, UH, RELATIVE TO THE UPPER PORTION OF THE ROOF TO THE TOP OF THE TREE SEEMS LIKE A SUBSTANTIAL TREE GOING [00:15:01] SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE LOWER ROOF LINE ON THE PORCH. SO I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THOSE SOUTHWEST FACING, UM, SOLAR PANELS BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT THEY WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY SHADED WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION TO THE TREE. UM, I'LL, I HAVE A FOLLOW UP ON THE, USING THE EAST FACE ON REAR GABLE. I THINK, UH, THE CHAIRMAN ASKED ABOUT THIS. YOU'RE, YOU'RE POINTING OUT THAT THERE'S A LARGE TREE TO THE WEST AND THAT'S CERTAINLY GOING TO SHADE, DROP SHADE ACROSS THIS, THIS ROOF IN THE AFTERNOON. BUT IS THAT REALLY GONNA BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER EAST FACING PANELS YOU HAVE? BECAUSE I'M NOTICING THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF PANELS ON A STEEP ROOF FACING EAST THAT SEEM TO BE THE SAME POSITION. RIGHT. UM, I THINK ON THIS ONE, SORRY, I JUST HAD TO LOOK AT MY NOTES. UM, THERE WAS A COUPLE THAT HE DIDN'T WANT, UM, TOUCHED AND THAT WAS ONE OF 'EM. SO WE'RE GONNA LOSE A LITTLE BIT OF PRODUCTION ON THOSE JUST TO NOT TURN THOSE TREES. RIGHT. BUT I, I, I GUESS I'M A, I'M ASKING THE QUESTION AGAIN. WHY AREN'T YOU USING THE REAR, AT LEAST EAST FACE OF THAT REAR GABLE SEGMENT? SO THAT ONE IS GOING TO BE MORE SHADED IN THE BACK DUE TO THAT TREE VERSUS THE ONES THAT ARE UP FRONT. SO IF WE'RE ALREADY GONNA LOSE PRODUCTION BY NOT TRIMMING THAT FRONT TREE, HE'S GONNA GET MORE OUT OF THAT ONE BECAUSE IT'S NOT AS BIG AS THE ONE THAT'S AT THE REAR. OKAY. THERE'S A FEW, THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT CONCERN ME, PARTICULARLY ON THE STEEP PART OF THE ROOF, THE SHALLOWER PART OF THE ROOF, I HAVE LESS CONCERNS, BUT THE ROOF, THE ROOF IS, UH, UM, HISTORIC MATERIAL IN SITU. DO YOU HAVE NON-DESTRUCTIVE WAYS OF THE, TO ATTACH THE FLUSH MOUNTS? I'VE GOT CONCERNS ABOUT THE VISIBILITY. I THINK IT'S DRAMATICALLY CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF THE ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE, BUT I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORIC MATERIAL ON THE ROOF. SURE. UM, SO IT IS A, A METAL ROOF AND THE CLAMPS WE USE ARE SS FIVE CLAMPS, SO WE DON'T ACTUALLY NECESSARILY DRILL INTO IT. UM, IT'S MORE OF A CLAMP, SO IT'S NOT HURTING THE STRUCTURE OF THAT, THAT METAL ROOF. SO THERE'S NO PERFORATIONS THAT OCCUR INTO THE ROOF. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THE IMAGE ON THE, ON THE SCREEN, BUT I'M SEEING WHAT APPEARS TO BE SOLAR PANELS ON THE GARAGE, OR AT LEAST, UH, UH, WATER, WATER HEATER PANELS. YEAH. I BELIEVE THAT'S, UH, MAYBE FOR HIS POOL. UM, AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE DID. THAT'S PROBABLY THE REASON WHY Y'ALL AREN'T PROPOSING SOLAR PANELS ON THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. IF IT, IF IT, I MEAN, IT WOULDN'T. SO THE WHAT'S ON IT NOW IS MORE OF LIKE A, A SCREEN, UM, WHICH WOULDN'T BE NEAR AS HEAVY AS AS SOLAR SYSTEM. THAT'S FOR THE POOL. THOSE, THOSE SCREENS ARE CIRCULATING WATER, I THINK, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WEIGHT COMPARISON IS WITH THOSE, BUT JUST KIND OF CHALLENGING THAT ASSERTION A LITTLE BIT. UH, THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN. I, I, I, I, I HAVE SOME, SOME CONCERN ABOUT THIS CASE AND I THINK I CAN LEAVE IT THERE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER LFO. UH, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD OPPOSE ANY PANELS THAT CAN BE VIEWED FROM THE STREET. UH, BUT SPECIFICALLY REGARDING TREE PRUNING, I, I COULDN'T SUPPORT ANY TREE PRUNING TO, UH, REMOVE SHADE FROM THE PANELS. AND ALSO, UH, IN CASE THE APPLICANT ISN'T AWARE OF THIS, TREES GROW LARGER AND OVER TIME, UH, THERE'S GONNA BE THE TEMPTATION TO CHOP LIMBS OFF OF TREES, IN WHICH CASE YOU END UP WITH TREES THAT LOOK LIKE THEY'RE UNDER UTILITY LINES THAT C P S HAS CHOPPED THE MIDDLE OF OUT. SO I'M VERY, UM, UNSUPPORTIVE OF THE PANELS IN GENERAL. COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, MA MAINLY I, I'M WONDERING WITH RESPECT TO, UH, RIGHTS AND, UH, THE, UM, USE OF MODERN TECHNOLOGIES. ONE OF THE COMMENTS BY ONE OF THE LETTERS THAT WAS READ SAYS THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS BUILDING BUILT IN 1910 HAS NO BUSINESS WITH SOLAR PANELS ON IT, WHICH I FIND A VERY INTERESTING COMMENT, UH, BECAUSE [00:20:01] IT, IT, IT, YOU KNOW, SPEAKS TO THE CHANGING TECHNOLOGIES. UH, AND, AND OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS A, IF IT WAS A HUTT, YOU COULD MAKE THE SAME COMMENT. UM, BUT I, I WOULD ASSUME THIS IS, THIS IS THE QUESTION. I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE, THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS SOME RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO SOME GUARANTEE THAT SOME MANIFESTATION OF, OF, UH, IMPROVEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN SOME WAY OR FORM. UM, AND I, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE, THE, THE DIMENSION FROM THE EVE AND OF COURSE, UH, UM, VISIBILITY FROM THE STREET. BUT AT, AT SOME POINT IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, ADAPTING TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY, THAT THAT, THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME PROHIBITION OF GOVERNMENT TO PROHIBIT, UH, FROM PROHIBITING WHILE STILL LIMITING CAN, CAN YOU SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT STAFF? UM, UM, SO RIGHT NOW THE STATE DOES, OR IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO ANSWER, THAT'S FINE TOO. UM, BUT RIGHT NOW THE STATE DOES GIVE CITIES THE ABILITY TO REGULATE, YOU KNOW, THIS TYPE OF INSTALLATION ON A HISTORIC PROPERTY. UM, THERE'S NO LIMITATIONS RIGHT NOW TO THAT, BUT WE DO FIND IN OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS IS SYSTEM THE GUIDELINES. BUT, BUT, BUT, BUT WE'RE HEARING, UM, I MEAN, THROUGH YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, REALLY NOT SOMETHING THAT SAYS NO, BUT SOMETHING THAT LIMITS THE APPLICATION RIGHT THERE, THERE'S GUIDELINES THAT, THAT GIVE US THE BEST PRACTICES FOR THIS TYPE OF INSTALLATION. YES. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FOLLOWING IN OUR REVIEW. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. COURT. DO WE HAVE A, UH, MORE QUESTIONS OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION? UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I, I SHARE, UH, THE CONCERNS THAT YOU AND AND COMMISSIONER, UH, FISH EXPRESSED, AND I, I THINK THERE CAN BE SOME MORE EXPLORATION, UM, INTO EITHER OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RECEIVING, UH, SOLAR PANELS AND, YOU KNOW, AFTER SOME, UH, MAYBE AUGMENTATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURE OR EVEN, UM, A, UH, COVERED CARPORT, UH, STRUCTURE AS WELL THAT COULD BE, UH, COULD RECEIVE IT. BUT THIS, THIS, UH, PROPOSAL I, I CAN'T SUPPORT. AND SO, UM, I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY'D BE WILLING TO, UH, WITHDRAW TODAY AND COME BACK WITH ALTERNATIVES OR JUST, UM, JUST KNOW THAT I, I WILL, UH, BE DENIED IT AS IT'S PROPOSED TODAY. CHAIRMAN FETZER, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'D, I'D LIKE TO ECHO THE, UH, COMMENTS OF FELLOW COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UM, I, I, I, I DO THINK THAT THEY, THEY WOULD BE MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE, UM, A SOLUTION THAT ENABLES THEM TO DO WHAT THEY WANNA DO, BUT TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT IS AESTHETICALLY PLEASING FOR, UM, ALL THOSE INVOLVED. THANK YOU. UM, ONE SUGGESTION MIGHT BE FOR THE APPLICANT TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION, UH, GO BACK AND STUDY THE SITE, ALL THE OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE SITE AND EVERYTHING, AND THEN POSSIBLY COME BACK TO A, UH, A D R C MEETING FOR REVIEW, OR THE COMMISSION CAN SEND IT TO THE D R C. THIS IS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO MEET WITH, UH, THE D R C TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT WOULD MEET THE APPROVAL HERE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY. SO A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MEET WITH THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE? SURE. THEN, THEN I MOVE, UH, TO REMAND THIS TO THE D R C I SECOND THAT MOTION. MR. CARPENTER, WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND TO SEND IT TO D R C. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAYYY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. [19. 20-5841 Address/Description: 255 BRAHAN HDRC Case No.: 2020-347 Historic District Name: Westfort Applicant: Cy Goudge Request: Construction of two, 2-story, multi-family residential structures City Council Dist.: 2] THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NUMBER 19. UM, EDWARD, ARE YOU THERE? YES, I HAVE THE APPLICANT AS WELL. ALRIGHT, WE'RE READY. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 19 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 23 47 2 55 [00:25:03] HAN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR THE GENERAL FOOTPRINT SETBACK, THE MASSING OF TWO, TWO-STORY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AT 2 55 BRAHAM LOCATED WITHIN THE WESTPORT. HISTORIC DISTRICT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCE THE PROPOSED AND WIDTH OF BOTH STRUCTURES AND INCREASE OPEN SPACE ON THE LOT BY BREAKING UP THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES AND THE SMALLER STRUCTURES. WHILE THE PROPOSED SETBACKS AND HEIGHT APPEAR TO BE APPROPRIATE, THAT DOES NOT FIND THE PROPOSED WIDTH OF BOTH STRUCTURES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES NOR THE WIDTH OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES FOUND WITHIN THE DISTRICT. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDES SITE PLAN THAT INCLUDES THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO PROVIDE CONTEXT AND CONFIRM THAT THE PROPOSED SETBACKS ON BOTH BRAHAM AND HAYWOOD ARE APPROPRIATE BASED NOTED, AND FINDINGS E AND F TO THE APPLICANT REDUCE THE OVERALL WIDTH OF BOTH STRUCTURES AS NOTED IN FINDING I THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT UTILIZED FOUNDATION AND FLUOR HEIGHTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AS NOTED IN FINDING K FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT REDUCED THE OVERALL MATCHING OF THE PROPOSED ROOF CONSISTENT WITH THE REDUCTION IN WIDTH, AS NOTED IN FINDING L FIVE, THAT THE APPLICANT ADHERED TO THE MATERIALS AND WINDOW STANDARDS NOTED IN THE APPLICABLE CITATIONS AND FINDINGS, M AND N AND SIX, THAT THE PROPOSED DIAGONAL PARKING BE MODIFIED TO PARALLEL PARKING. THE DIAGONAL PARKING IS NOT FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT. UH, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT'S SIDE GO IS ON THE LINE. HI, HOW ARE Y'ALL? GOOD. YOU WANT ME TO GO AHEAD, ED? YES, PLEASE. OH, SORRY. I APOLOGIZE. UM, WE ARE PROPOSING, WE, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS PROJECT BEFORE. I THINK Y'ALL SEEN IT FROM A DIFFERENT APPLICANT AS WELL, OR I KNOW Y'ALL SEEN IT FROM A DIFFERENT APPLICANT AS WELL. THIS IS THE PROJECT AT 2 55, RIGHT HAND LOCATED IN THE WEST, UM, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, THE LAST TIME WE MET ABOUT A MONTH AGO, UH, IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE GO BACK TO D R C AND, UM, PRESENT TO D R C. WE, WE HAVE DONE THAT, UH, AND WE HAD MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS THERE. WE'VE MADE SOME FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS SINCE TALKING TO D R C ON THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND HAVE COME BACK. UM, THE, SOME OF THE MAIN, UH, ADJUSTMENTS WE HAVE MADE IS ON THE, UM, MOST OF THE COMMENTS IN THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING WERE BASED ON THE SIZE, THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE, UM, THE HAYWOOD PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTY THAT'S LOCATED BEHIND THE PROPERTY FACING, UH, BRAHAM. UM, WE HAVE REDUCED THE OVERALL MASSING FACING HAYWOOD, UM, BOTH IN THE FRONT, AND I MEAN BOTH IN WIDTH AND IN HEIGHT. UH, FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED PROJECT, WE'VE REDUCED THE OVERALL FOOTPRINT AS WELL. UH, YOU CAN SEE THE DASH RED LINE, UH, ON THE, UM, PLAN THAT SHOWS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED NOW. SO WE'VE COME IN ON ALL SIDES. UM, THE OTHER, UH, COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE WERE, UH, BASED UPON THE, UH, FRONT OF HAYWOOD, MAKING IT MORE APPROACHABLE. AND SO WE HAVE DONE THAT AS WELL, OR, UH, MORE OF A, THE FRONT OF A HOME. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE ELEVATION PLAN, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'VE DONE, UH, MORE PORCHES THAT, UH, ARE ACCURATE WITH, UM, THE STRUCTURES, THE SURROUNDING STRUCTURES, MAINLY THE STRUCTURE DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS PROPERTY. UH, THE PORCHES ARE VERY SIMILAR TO STORY PORCHES, UH, THAT GO WITH THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY. UM, THE REASON WE PROPOSE THAT WAS, UH, SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING, IF YOU'RE AT THAT CORNER OF, I BELIEVE IT'S ARMY AND HAYWOOD, AND YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE TWO PROPERTIES, YOU COULD SEE THE ONLY TWO THINGS YOU'LL SEE OUT OF YOUR YOU'LL V L C IS THAT, UH, PROPERTY THERE AT THE CORNER OF ARMY THAT HAS A VERY SIMILAR FRONT PORCH TO THE, OUR FRONT PORCH AS WELL. SO WE WANTED TO MIMIC THOSE, UH, DESIGNS, UM, ACROSS, SO IT WOULD LOOK VERY HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. WE LOWERED THE PLATE HEIGHTS IN THE SECOND FLOOR OF OUR, UH, OF THE BACK HAYWOOD PROPERTY AS WELL, UM, ALLOWING FOR A DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT. AND WE ALSO LOWERED THE, THE ROOF LINE, UM, ALLOWING A DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHTS OF OVER FIVE FEET. UM, WE'VE ALSO, UH, LOWER, UH, DONE HIP ROOFS ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AS, UM, MENTIONED IN THE D R C. SO IT WOULD REDUCE THE OVERALL MASS OF, UH, THE PROPERTY JUST TO MAKE IT MUCH MORE OF A SECONDARY STRUCTURE TO THE PRIMARY. UM, THE, UH, AS FAR AS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THE STAFF HAS MADE, UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE PARALLEL OR THE, UM, DIAGONAL PARKING THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING WE THREW IN THERE. WE WILL VERY QUICKLY CHANGE THAT BACK TO, UH, PARALLEL PARKING AND, [00:30:01] UM, AS FAR AS THE KEEPING WITH HISTORICAL, UH, WINDOWS AND HISTORICAL SIGHTINGS AND, UM, THOSE, WE AGREED TO ALL THOSE STIPULATIONS AS WELL. WE'LL PROVIDE A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE SETBACKS ARE IN ACCORDANCE, WHICH WE, WE ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEM, BUT WE'LL JUST SHOW A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THAT AS WELL. SO, UM, THOSE ARE THE CORRECTIONS THAT WE'VE MADE SINCE, UH, SINCE THE LAST TIME WE MET. AND I GUESS A FEW OTHER CORRECTIONS WE MADE WAS WE MOVED THE DOORS, UM, ON THE PROPERTY. WE ADDED SOME ACCESS SIDEWALKS THAT, UH, THAT THE COMMISSION HAD POINTED OUT LAST TIME WHERE THE REALLY STAT HAD POINTED OUT LAST TIME TO FACE THE FRONT OF EACH PROPERTY SO THERE'S MORE, UH, ACCESSIBILITY OR LOOKS MORE INVITING FROM THE, THE FRONT OF EACH STREET. SO THAT'S WHERE WE STAND ON, UH, TODAY. AND I GUESS I'LL, UH, TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL MAY HAVE. MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, I'D LIKE TO ASK, UH, STAFF A QUESTION. YES. UH, THE, THE COMMENTS THAT, UM, THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THAT STAFF HAS AND THE, AND THE COMMENTS THAT WERE JUST MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE ALTERATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, DO THE RECOMMENDATIONS REFLECT, UH, THE, THE COMMENTS BEFORE THE, THE, UH, ALTERATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE? OR ARE THOSE COMMENTS, UH, AFTER THE, UH, THE, THE APPLICANT'S, UH, ALTERATIONS REFLECTING? RIGHT. SO THE, SO THE COMMENTS, THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF HAS ARE BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'RE REVIEWING HERE. UM, WHILE THE APPLICANT HAS ADJUSTED MANY THINGS, INCLUDING FOOTPRINTS AND MASSING WIDTH, THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES, UH, STAFF STILL HAS THOSE COMMENTS, UH, WITHIN OUR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T FIND, UH, THE REDUCTION TO QUITE YET BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT. UH, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, UH, OUR COMMENTS ARE, UH, TO THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'RE REVIEWING. OKAY. THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE. THANK YOU. COREY, DID WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS? WE DO. UM, JUST ONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IT. UM, PATTY ANCE, UH, FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY 1 0 7, KING WILLIAM IN 2016, THE DEMOLITION OF THE LANDMARK WORTHY HOUSE AT 2 55 HAN INSPIRED WEST FORT RESIDENCE TO SEEK DISTRICT DESIGNATION TO PROTECT THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. SINCE THEN, MULTIFAMILY INFILL FOR THE SIGN HAS BEEN PROPOSED AND REJECTED TWICE BEFORE BEING REFERRED TO THE D R C IN NOVEMBER OF 2018. THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF OF SAN ANTONIO OBJECTS TO THIS LATEST DEVELOPMENT PLAN. ALTHOUGH THE NUMBER OF MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM FOUR TO TWO, THEY STILL DO NOT FIT WITH THE HISTORIC PATTERN OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT DOMINATE THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS SECTION OF HAN. UM, THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER REMAINS SIGNIFICANT. FURTHERMORE, THE PROPOSED SIX UNITS CONTRADICT THE GOAL OF THE 2003 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WHICH SEEKS TO REDUCE DENSITY WHERE THE ORIGINAL USE WAS SINGLE FAMILY. BECAUSE THE PROPOSED REDUCTIONS AND LOT COVERAGE AND DENSITY DO NOT ADEQUATELY CONFORM TO THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OR THE INTENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, WE URGE THE COMMISSION TO DENY THIS REQUEST. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GRU. UM, I WAS PART OF THIS DEMOTION BACK THEN, AND I REMEMBER I, I WALKED THE PROPERTY. UM, SO, AND I GUESS WE, I HAVE THE THIRD TIME WE SEE A PROJECT FOR THIS ADDRESS. UM, I AM STILL A LITTLE BIT WORRIED ABOUT, I AGREE WITH STAFF COMMENTS, ESPECIALLY ON THE, THE PROPERTY, UH, FACING HAYWOOD, THE SECONDARY, THE SMALLER ONE. UM, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT, I THINK IN THE PACKAGE, THERE WAS A COMPARISON WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU HAVE A PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND A SECONDARY STRUCTURE BACK. AND I KNOW THERE'S A CORNER AND WE HAVE A FRONT TO HAYWOOD. YEAH, THERE, IT'S STILL, AND I, I THINK THAT, UH, THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. UM, I WAS ON THE D R C AND WE DID, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE SOME, UH, CHANGES TO THE MASSING ON THE REAR, UM, AND, UM, SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE, THE FRONT HOUSE. I DO AGREE WITH STAFF IN THE OVERALL WIDTH OF THESE STRUCTURES. UH, WE'RE BASICALLY, UH, THE PROPOSAL IS BASICALLY FROM SETBACK TO SETBACK, UH, GOING EAST TO WEST ON THE BRAHAM PROPERTY. UM, [00:35:02] I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF YOUR UNITS? OF EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT? YES, SIR. THE AVERAGE, UM, 1700. OKAY. UM, WHAT ONE, ONE OF THE THINGS I WILL, UM, I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT WE'VE ALSO, AND I MEANT TO MENTION THIS IN OUR, UH, OUR OPENING COMMENTS, AND I JUST SKIPPED IT ON MY NOTES AND I APOLOGIZE. UH, WE HAVE WORKED VERY HARD WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ON THIS, AND WE ARE NO LONGER GETTING ANY OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AS YOU, UH, WILL NOTE IN THE COMMENTS, THOSE WERE FROM, UH, THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY, BUT THOSE WERE NOT PART OF THE WESTPORT ALLIANCE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UM, WE HAVE WORKED WITH THEM TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THIS PROJECT. UH, THEY, UH, WE ARE STILL WORKING WITH THEM ON A FEW DESIGN THINGS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND SOME, UH, TREE, UH, MITIGATION THAT, UM, THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE. BUT OVERALL, UM, THE, THE ALLIANCE IS IN LINE WITH WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE. SO STAFF COMMENTS ARE STILL AFTER WHAT YOU HAVE, UH, PRESENTED TODAY, WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON THE STAFF COMMENTS OTHER THAN THE, THE SIZE? UM, I MEAN, STAFF IS STILL HOLDING UP ON THAT AND IT, THIS IS CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. UM, AGAIN, APPROVAL. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE STAFF IS, UH, CONSIDERING THAT REDUCTION THAT WE'VE ALREADY WORKED IS, IS BIG ENOUGH. THE PARKING, LET'S JUST SAY THE PARKING IS NOT AN ISSUE. IS THERE ALLEY PARKING ON THE REST OF THE ALLEY NORTH? YES, MA'AM. THERE'S, THERE'S ALLEY PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT COMES IN FOR THE, THE HAYWOOD PROPERTY. I, UH, AS FAR AS MY OVERALL COMMENTS ARE, UM, ON WHAT THE STAFF HAS, UH, RECOMMENDED, AND I UNDERSTAND, UH, THE WIDTH, THAT IS A LITTLE WIDER, UH, TOTAL. BUT IF YOU'LL NOTICE ON OUR, ON THE LAST SHEET, OR NOT THE LAST SHEET, THE, UM, LAST SHEET PAST THE, THE FIRST SHEET PAST THE DESIGNS, UH, WE WENT OUT AND MEASURED THE MASSING OF EACH PROPERTY ACROSS THE FRONT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT OUR TOTAL OVERALL WIDTH, UM, AND THE WIDTH OF, UH, OF OTHER RELATED PROPERTIES, WE ARE SITTING AT, UM, THAT WE ARE SITTING AT 68 FEET, UH, ACROSS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS 68% OF THE, UH, WIDTH OF OUR PROPERTY. WE BUMP OUT PAST THAT WHEN, UH, TO INCORPORATE THE TWO CAR GARAGES SO WE CAN HANDLE THE PARKING SITUATION, UM, IN THE BACK OF THE, UH, BEHIND THE PROPERTY. BUT WE ARE MASKING THAT BEHIND TREES. UM, SO IT DOESN'T LOOK AS, UH, UH, THE MASSING IS MORE SUBTLE AS YOU MOVE BACK. SO THE, THE OVERALL WIDTH, WE BELIEVE IS IN LINE WITH THE FRONT MASSING IS IN LINE WITH THE, UM, OVERALL, UH, HISTORICAL, UM, UH, NORMS OF, OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WE TOOK EVERY HOUSE ON THE STREET BEHIND US, EVERY HOUSE ON THE, ON THE, ON THE BLOCK BEHIND US, EVERY BLOCK HOUSE ON OUR BLOCK, AND THEN FOUR HOUSES IN, ON EACH SIDE, ON BOTH STREETS, FRONT AND BACK. UM, SO WE, WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE, UM, WE HAVE, WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO TRY TO, UH, TO DECREASE THE, THE OVERALL VIEW OF WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE FROM BRAHAM AND MUDDLE UP THE FACT THAT IT IS A LITTLE WIDE AS YOU GO BACK. BUT AS FAR AS WHAT YOU'RE, THE PRIMARY VIEW OF WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE IS GONNA BE 68 FEET ACROSS, WHICH IS IN LINE WITH, UH, WHAT WE, WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED. UM, AS FAR AS THE REDUCTION IN THE CONTINUE TO REDUCE THE, UH, THE BACK PROPERTY, UM, WE FELT LIKE LOWERING THE PLATE HEIGHTS AND MAKING THE OVERALL PROPERTY NARROWER AND WIDER, I MEAN, WE'VE MINI OR MADE IT SMALLER IN EVERY DIMENSION THAT IT CAN BE MADE SMALLER. UM, SHOWS THAT IT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY AND AS MENTIONED IN THE D R C WAS JUST, IT NEEDED TO BE SHOW A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION FROM THE, UH, FROM THE PRIMARY PROPERTY. AND WE FELT LIKE IF YOU LOOK AT THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT FACE AS THE ELEVATION THAT FACES HAYWOOD, THAT IT REALLY DOES LOOK MUCH SMALLER, UM, UH, IN OUR VIEW, UM, OF THAT. SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S KINDA WHERE WE STAND ON [00:40:01] THAT. MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ, I, I, UH, UH, WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UM, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ON, UH, THAT THAT TAKES US BEYOND, UM, UH, THAT AT LEAST OPENS THE DOOR TO GET DEEPER INTO, UH, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ. CAN I, IS IT OKAY IF I CAN ASK JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS BEFORE WE DO THAT? SURE, SURE, SURE. I, WELL, UH, COMMISSIONER FISH, UH, O OF COURSE, WHATEVER ACCOMMODATES WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU WANT. I, THE, THE ONLY REASON I WANTED TO, TO GET INTO, UM, UH, INTO A DISCUSSION AFTER MOTION WAS 'CAUSE IT JUST SEEMED THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THE QUESTIONS WERE WOULD BE, UH, MORE APPROPRIATE. BUT OF COURSE, I, I COULD BE OFF ON THAT. THIS IS JUST A QUESTION ABOUT INFORMATION. IT JUST MAKES SENSE MAYBE TO GET AT, GET AT NOW. SORRY, I, I DIDN'T JUMP IN A LITTLE BIT QUICKER. UH, STAFF, IF YOU COULD GO TO THE FLOOR PLAN DOES, I'M SORRY, THE SITE PLAN, AND I WAS IN THE D R C ALSO, THERE WAS A, UH, A LARGE, I WOULD NOTE THAT THERE WAS A LARGE, UH, CONTINGENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, MAYBE NOT LARGE, BUT I THINK THERE WERE FIVE OR SIX OR 10, UM, MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT, THAT WERE ALSO IN THE D R C. SO I KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS INFORMED. THEY HEARD, UH, OUR COMMENTS IN THE D R C, UH, AND THEIR, THEIR ISSUE. WE TRIED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT THEY HAD RAISED PREVIOUSLY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE D R C. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STAFF IS MENTIONING AND, AND I HAD CONCERN ABOUT, UH, WAS IF WE LOOK AT THAT BIG, THAT BIG TREE ON THE CORNER OF HAYWOOD AND BRAHAM, UH, THE, THE CORNER FOUNDATION OF THIS KIND OF EXTRA WIDTH IS COMING REALLY CLOSE AND, AND IN THE ROOT ZONE. AND, AND I HAD MENTIONED THAT THIS HAD BEEN AN ISSUE IN SOME OF THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENTS. FIRST, THE TREE WAS DRAWN IN THE WRONG PLACE. I ASSUME THAT IT'S IN THE PROPER PLACE, BUT THAT THAT FOUNDATION IS REALLY ENCROACHING AND THAT EXTRA WIDTH THAT'S POPPING OUT TOWARD THE TREE IS PROBABLY PART OF STAFF'S RESPONSE ABOUT THE OVERALL WIDTH. IF WE LOOK ON THE BRAY HAND SIDE, WHERE WE SEE THE TWO LEGS AND THE FRONT PORCH, THAT'S ROUGHLY, I BELIEVE, AND, AND THIS IS, THIS IS A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. PLEASE HELP ME REMEMBER THE, THE KINDA THE EIGHT SHAPED BRAY HAND ELEVATION IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ON THE SITE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. IT'S A, IT'S, UH, VERY MUCH A, UM, IN RESPONSE TO WHAT WAS, UH, PREVIOUSLY DEMOLISHED, UM, BY A PREVIOUS, UH, OWNER. UM, OKAY. UM, UH, YEAH, SORRY. SO, SO THOSE DIMENSIONS ARE, ARE, ARE WHAT I MEAN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE KIND OF HISTORICALLY AS ATTACHED TO THE SITE AS AN OVERALL WIDTH. AND I THINK WHAT STAFF IS RESPONDING TO IS KIND OF THE BUMP OUTS ON THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THIS DRAWING. AND, AND I JUST, MY NORTH IS SOUTH RIGHT NOW, SO I'LL SAY THE LITTLE BUMP OUTS, ADDING EXTRA WIDTH TO THE TOP. I KNOW I HAD SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE TREE. HAVE Y'ALL DONE ANY INVESTIGATION ABOUT THE ROOT ZONE OF THE TREE OR HOW YOU'RE GONNA MITIGATE THAT THERE? UH, WE, WE HAVE AND, UM, WE, UH, TALKED TO MY, OUR WRIST AND WE'RE ONLY AT 15% OF THE ROOT ZONE THERE. AND THEY WERE, UH, VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT TREE WOULD SURVIVE. WE LIKE ACTUALLY THE PROXIMITY TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. I KNOW, NOT FROM A ROOT ZONE PERSPECTIVE, BUT FROM A, UH, DESIGN PERSPECTIVE TO MUDDLE THAT FRONT END AND MAKE SURE THAT WE, UH, DESIGN THAT THE, THAT FRONT OF THAT PROPERTY, IT, THAT, UM, HIDDEN FROM THE, THE CORNER THERE. BUT THE, THE I'VE, I'VE USED FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT BEING WITHIN, YOU KNOW, ONLY 15% OF THE ROOT ZONE BEING TAKEN UP RIGHT THERE WAS NOT, UH, WAS NOT A CONCERN TO THEM. SO IT'S ALSO, THE MASS IS KIND OF COMING UP. IS IT, IS IT KIND OF COMING UP UNDER THE CANOPY OF THE TREE OR IS THERE SIGNIFICANT TREE PRINTING THAT HAS TO HAPPEN? YEAH, IT COMES UP UNDERNEATH THE, IT COMES UP UNDERNEATH THE, UM, THERE MAY BE SOME, UH, MINOR TRIMMING ON CERTAIN BRANCHES, BUT THE OVERALL CANOPY, UH, IS ABOVE, WILL BE ABOVE THE ROOF LINE. AND SO IT'LL BE, UM, IT'S, IT'S SIGNIFICANT TREE. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S 30, UH, PLUS FEET AND, WELL, IT'S MORE THAN, THAT'S 40 PLUS FEET IN TIGHT. SO THE, THE ELEVATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT LOOKS LIKE IT, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE A QUARTER OF THE CANOPY HAS TO COME OUT, AND THAT'S WHY I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TREE OR AT LEAST A, A, A BIG PORTION OF THE CANOPY AS WELL. AND, AND MAYBE I'M NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING HOW THE, HOW THE CANOPY IS INTERACTING WITH THAT TWO STORY CORNER, BUT I, I SAW A LITTLE BIT OF WORRY ABOUT THAT. OKAY. UM, THAT'S, UH, SOMETHING WE'LL MAKE SURE AND, UH, MAKE SURE WE DO A PROPER, UM, UH, UM, ANALYSIS ON AND MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN KEEP THAT TREE FROM DOING, JUST CUTTING OFF A QUARTER OF IT. UH, WHEN WE MEASURED IT, THE TREE WAS TALLER THAN WHAT IT'S [00:45:01] APPEARING ON THE SCALE THERE. UM, AND SO MOST OF IT WOULD FIT UNDERNEATH THE, UM, WOULD FIT UNDERNEATH THE ROOF LINE. ANOTHER THING THAT THAT WAS PRESENTED, NOT PRESENTED WAS A PROBLEM WE WERE DEALT WITH WAS, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF TREE MITIGATION ON THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS DONE BEFORE WE TOOK OWNERSHIP OF IT OR SPARK NOT MITIGATION. THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF TREE REMOVAL DONE ON THIS PROPERTY BEFORE WE TOOK OWNERSHIP OF IT. UM, AND SO THERE'S MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS. SO WE WILL BE PLANTING BACK, UM, A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF TREES IN THIS, ON THIS PROPERTY TO, UM, TO MAKE UP FOR THE FACT THAT 63 INCHES OF TREE NEEDS TO BE MITIGATED. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. SORRY. THANKS FOR THAT. THANKS FOR GIVING ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, GO. YOU CAN GO AHEAD. YES, SIR. UM, WELL, I, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONCEPTUAL, UM, AS SUBMITTED WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS STIPULATED AND PRESENTED BEFORE US. I, SECOND, FIRST SPEAKER, THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I'D LIKE TO ADD A, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD ANOTHER STIPULATION. THIS HAS TO DO WITH, UH, WHAT THE APPLICANT JUST MENTIONED ABOUT THE TREE MITIGATION. IF WE COULD, UM, HAVE AS, UH, AN ADDITIONAL STIPULATION TO COME BACK WITH A MORE DEVELOPED SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS HOW THEY'RE GOING TO ADD ADDITIONAL TREES TO THE SITE TO HELP GROW TO ACHIEVE THAT MITIGATION, UH, GOAL BY, BY ALL MEANS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. AND, AND, UH, REALLY JUST TO BE CLEAR, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMENTS FROM THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY, THE, THE, UH, THE REASON, UH, UH, THAT, THAT I FIND THIS APPROPRIATE IS THAT THEY'RE REALLY, UH, STAFF IS REALLY KINDA WHITTLING DOWN, UH, THIS PROJECT AND IT'S CONCEPTUAL. AND I'M, I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT WITH THE MINIMAL, UM, UH, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, THAT, UH, IN, UH, UH, GOING TOWARD FINAL THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO, UH, ASSIST ASSISTANCE APPLICANT IN ACHIEVING, UH, UH, AN AN END RESULT THAT, THAT WOULD BE PLEASING, I THINK, TO ALL INCLUDING, UH, THOSE COMMENTS THAT, THAT, UH, ARE STILL NOT IN FAVOR. UH, BUT YES, BY ALL MEANS, INCLUDING AND STIPULA ARE PER, UH, THE, THE COMMENTS, UH, UH, THAT WERE JUST, UH, COMMUNICATED BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER DOES THE SECOND CONCUR. THIS IS COMMISSIONER LFO. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE TREE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, WHAT SPECIES TREE IS IT? IT IS A PECAN TREE. OKAY. THAT ADDS TO THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE TREE WILL BE STRESSED BY REMOVING, UH, PART OF ITS ROOT ZONE AND PART OF ITS CANOPY. SO, UH, THE COUNTRIES DO NOT LIKE TO BE DISTURBED EITHER THEIR ROOTS OR THEIR BRANCHES. OKAY. WE WILL, WE WILL TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. WE'LL DO OUR, WE WE WANT TO SAVE THAT TREE AS MUCH AS ANYBODY 'CAUSE IT IS A FOCAL POINT. SO WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T DO ANYTHING TO ARM THAT TREE. THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UH, COMMISSIONER, DO YOU, UH, CONCUR WITH MY PROPOSED, UH, ADDITIONAL STIPULATION? I ACCEPT A SECOND. APPRECIATE THAT. AND JUST TO FOLLOW ON, UH, WITH, UH, WITH THE COMMISSIONER WAS SAYING, AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SCHEME, UH, PERHAPS THE APPLICANT, UH, IF YOU GUYS COULD INVESTIGATE, YOU KNOW, YOUR FOUNDATION DESIGN FOR THE PORCH THAT IS, IS CLOSEST TO THE TREE ROOT. THERE, THERE MAY BE WAYS IN WHICH YOU CAN SPAN OVER, UH, PORTIONS OF, OF THE MAJOR ROOT SYSTEMS THERE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF, UH, OF ACTUAL WHOLESALE CUTTING AND REMOVAL OF ROOT STRUCTURE. UH, BUT THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT AS, UH, COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ IS, IS SUGGESTING CAN BE EXPLORED AS YOU TAKE THIS TOWARDS FINAL. WE CAN, WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. UM, I GUESS OUR ONLY, OUR ONLY CONCERN IS WE'VE NEVER BEEN, SO THE, THE, UM, THE APP, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE JUST REDUCE THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY AND, UH, WE'RE NOT REALLY IN A, SO I GUESS WE'RE GETTING APPROVAL FOR AS LONG AS WE REDUCE THE WIDTH OF THE BOTH PROPERTIES. UM, BUT I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE THE AVENUE TO FIGURE OUT IF WE'VE GONE, YOU KNOW, WHAT AMOUNT WE NEED TO REDUCE IT BEFORE STAFF CAN RECOMMEND IT? THIS IS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. I, I THINK THAT THERE'S A WHOLE PURPOSE OF MOVING IT OUT OF CONCEPTUAL AND ADDING THE COMMENTS ON THE TREE MITIGATION AND, UH, OBVIOUSLY, WHICH ALSO MEANS, UH, DEEP EFFORTS TO PROTECT EXISTING TREES, UH, AND THAT THAT CAN GO BEYOND [00:50:01] BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT JUST THE TREE, WE ALSO HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES THAT, THAT, UM, WILL HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE FINAL PLANNING OF THE PROJECT, OR AT LEAST TO GET BEYOND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE CONCEPTUAL, UH, TO HAVE A, A FINAL APPROVAL. SO THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT AS YOU, IF THIS RECEIVES CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, THAT AS YOU DEVELOP THE PLANS THAT YOU, UH, REQUEST, UH, TO MEET WITH THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND STAFF TO GET THEIR, UH, COMMENTS AS YOU DEVELOP THE PLANS. YEAH. COMMISSIONER FETZER, I WAS ABOUT TO STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT. SO BEFORE ANY FURTHER DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, LET'S LOOK AT THIS AGAIN, KIND OF AT THE SCHEMATIC LEVEL WITH THE COMMITTEE. THAT WAY WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S IN AGREEMENT THAT THE STIPULATIONS ARE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. DO WE NEED TO ADD THIS AS A, UH, CONDITION OF THE MOTION? I, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE THAT'S THE, LIKE THE COMMENTS, THEY'RE IMPORTANT COMMENTS, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE INHERENT IN THE, IN THE PROCESS. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAYYY. NAYYY. I BELIEVE THERE'S ONE NAY, SO MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. I DO WANT THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER FISH DID STEP OUT, WAS NOT PRESENT IN THAT VOTE. OKAY. REMINDER, ITEM 20 HAS BEEN POSTPONED. UM, ITEM 21 IS EDWARD'S CASE AS WELL. SO LET'S GIVE HIM, UM, A FEW SECONDS TO GET THE NEXT APPLICANT ON THE LINE. EDWARD, UM, OH, HE IS, HE'S TALKING TO THE APPLICANT NOW. I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION ON THAT ONE. THERE'S, UM, THERE WAS TWO, TWO FOLDER IN OUR ONE THAT SAYS LATE. DO YOU KNOW IF THE COMMENTS ARE BASED ON THE LATE SUBMISSION? WAS THAT INCLUDED? SO WE DID A REVIEW, UM, THAT IS BASED ON THE ONE THAT IS NOT MARKED LATE. UM, WE RECEIVED THE UPDATED SUBMISSION THAT IS RESPONSE TO OUR RECOMMENDATION AS WE OFTEN DO. WE HAVE NOT UPDATED THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE WANTED TO PROVIDE IT BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT IT WAS MOVING, IT WAS ADDRESSING A STAFF'S REPORT. CAN WE UNMUTE EDWARD AGENDA [21. 20-6016 Address/Description: Dawson at N Olive (three individual lots, currently unaddressed) HDRC Case No.: 2020-390 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Ron Alvarado/AG Associates Architects Request: Construction of three, 2-story residential structures City Council Dist.: 2] ITEM NUMBER 21, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 23 90 DAWSON AT NORTH OLIVE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT THREE, TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE VACANT LOT AT THE CORNER OF DAWSON AND NORTH OLIVE LOCATED WITHIN THE DIGA WOODY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. THESE LOTS ARE CURRENTLY UNADDRESSED. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS. A THROUGH SS STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PRIOR TO RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FROM STAFF. ONE, THAT THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION FEATURE SETBACKS THAT ARE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THOSE FOUND HISTORICALLY ON THE BLOCK, AND THAT THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN BE RECONFIGURED TO ALLOW FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS TO BE ORIENTED TOWARD. DAWSON IS NOTED IN FINDING G TWO THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATE AND REDUCE MASSING AND HEIGHT IS NOTED IN FINDING H AS OPPOSED TO MASSING IS ATYPICAL FOR WHAT IS FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT. THE HEIGHT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE, OF ADJACENT HISTORIC HOUSES BY MORE THAN ONE STORY. ADDITIONAL HEIGHT MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH A CHANGE IN ROOF FORM, UTILIZATION OF A HALF STORY OR STEP DOWNS IN HEIGHT FROM ADJACENT SINGLE STORY HOMES. THREE, THAT THE APPLICANT MODIFY THE PREVIOUS MODIFIED THE PROPOSED WIDTH IN RELATIONSHIP TO ROOT FORMS AS PROPOSED ROOF FORMS FEATURE WIDTHS THAT ARE ATYPICAL WITH THOSE FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN REGARDS TO OVERALL WIDTH IS NOTED IN FINDING K FOUR THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATED ADDITIONAL FENESTRATION ON THE SIDE FACADE. HE'S NOTED IN FINDING L FIVE THAT THE APPLICANT APPLICANT CONFIRMED THAT THE LOT COVERAGE FOR EACH LOT DOES NOT EXCEED 50% LOT COVERAGE, INCLUDING PAVING IS NOTED IN FINDING M SIX THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING SPACING BE CREASE [00:55:01] IS NOTED IN FINDING N SEVEN THAT THE PROPOSED STANDING SEA METAL ROOTS FEATURE PANELS THAT ARE 18 TO 21 INCHES WIDE. SEAMS THAT ARE ONE TO TWO INCHES IN HEIGHT, A STANDARD GLO FINISH IN A CRIMPED RIDGE SEAM OR A LOW PROFILE RIDGE CAP. IF A RIDGE CAP IS USED, IT MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. THE PROPOSED SIDING IS FEATURE AND EXPOSURE OF FOUR INCHES. A SMOOTH FINISH, A THICKNESS OF THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH IN, IN MIRE CORNERS. COLUMNS SHOULD BE SIX INCHES SQUARE. UH, EIGHT. THAT WINDOW MATERIALS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION IS NOTED IN FINDING O NINE THAT THE PROPOSED PARKING BE MODIFIED TO NOT FEATURE PARKING THAT RESULTS IN GARAGE DOORS THAT ARE VISIBLE FROM THE PRIMARY STREET. DAWON PARKING WITH GARAGES MAY BE APPROPRIATED ORIENTED INTERNALLY WITHIN THE SITE. INTEND THAT A LANDSCAPING PLAN BE DEVELOPED AND THAT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS NOTED IN FINDINGS. T N U UH, I HAVE THE APPLICANT MR. RON ALVARADO ON THE LINE. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. UH, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME ON REVIEWING THIS, UH, APPLICATION. AND WE HAVE REVISED THE DRAWINGS AND THE PACKAGE THAT EDWARD RECEIVED LATE, UH, DID ADDRESS ALL OF 'EM, IF NOT THE MAJORITY OF THE CONCERNS THAT STAFF HAD. AND I'D LIKE TO JUST STEP BACK AND JUST GO BACK TO THEIR, TO THEIR RESPONSE AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. UH, REGARDING THE, UM, UH, SO I'M LOOKING AT NUMBER ONE THAT THEY HAVE ON THERE IS THE ENTRY AND THE SETBACKS. AND IF YOU GO TO OUR SITE PLAN, WE HAVE, WE ARE NOT, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO HAVE THE, HAVE THE LOCK SPACE DAWSON STREET. UM, IF WE WERE TO DO THAT, THIS WOULD MAKE THE PROJECT THE INFEASIBLE FOR THE, FOR THE OWNERS OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT IS THREE SEPARATE LOTS. AND, UH, WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT THERE IS A, THAT THEY NORMALLY DO FACE ON DAWSON STREET. HOWEVER, JUST ACROSS THE STREET, THEY'RE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. THERE IS A DUPLEX UNIT THAT DOES FACE, UH, OLIVE STREET, AND THAT'S JUST AN F Y I INFORMATION, UH, THAT WE WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU. UM, UH, SO LET ME SEE HERE. WHAT ELSE DO I HAVE HERE? RIGHT, THAT HAS TO DO WITH NUMBER ONE. AND THEN NUMBER TWO, AS FAR AS REDUCING THE MASSING AND HEIGHT OF THE FINDINGS, THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF RECONSTRUCTION, UH, DOES NOT EXCEED THE GUIDELINES THAT THEY'RE, THAT THE, THAT YOUR GUIDELINES DO TALK ABOUT. UH, OUR RIDGE LINES ARE APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET TO SEVEN FEET AT THE MOST, UH, FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ON NORTH OLIVE STREET, UH, TO THEIR TOP OF THEIR ORIGINAL LINE. AND WE DID LO I THINK WE DID LOWER THE, UM, THE, UH, PLATE HEIGHTS AND, UH, TO OFFSET THAT. BUT WE ALSO STUDIED THE FACT OF, UM, REDUCING THE ROOF PITCHES ON THE ROOF. HOWEVER, WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT THAT, WE SAW THAT THAT IS NOT TYPICAL OF WHAT WE SAW ON HOUSES THAT ARE DIRECTLY ADJACENT ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR PROPERTY. SO WE DID NOT WANNA REDUCE THE ROOF PITCHES ON THESE ROOFS. AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A SIX AND 12 PITCH ON THE ROOF AND, EXCUSE ME, AND I BELIEVE THE HOUSE THAT IS ON NORTH OLIVE JUST NEXT TO US, IT APPEARS LIKE THEIR ROOF PITCHES ARE IN THE FRONT THAT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE AT LEAST A NINE TO NINE TO 12, EVEN A 12 TO 12 PITCH. AND SO, UH, I THINK WE'RE, WE'VE ADDRESSED, UH, WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT AND WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT. UM, NUMBER THREE, I THINK IT GOES BACK TO THE SAME THING. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR REVISED ELEVATION, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE HAVE, UH, STEPPED BACK, UH, THE UNIT AND ALSO ON THE SITE PLAN. UH, THE REASON WE DID THAT WAS TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE MAPPING OF THE UNITS ON EACH PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND BY THAT IT'S NOT, IT'S BROKEN UP THAT IT'S ONE BIG OLD MASS THAT'S GOING ACROSS, UM, THE LOT. AND RIGHT NOW THE UNITS ARE, UH, 40 FEET, UH, 40 FEET OUTSIDE, CLEAR DIMENSION. THAT IS THE, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE SIZE. AND THEY WERE BIGGER AND WE DID REDUCE 'EM. THEY WERE AT 42 FEET AND WE REDUCED THEM TO 40 FEET. AND, UH, BY DOING THAT, THAT ALSO ADDRESSED THE CONCERN OF THE STAFF AS FAR AS SPACING BETWEEN THE UNITS AND THE ADJACENT UNITS. ORIGINALLY WE WERE SPACED OUT, UH, APPROXIMATELY SEVEN FEET ON THE UNITS FROM UNIT TO UNIT, AND WE ARE NOW AT OVER NINE FEET, UM, SPACED BETWEEN THE UNITS. UH, GOING BACK A LITTLE BIT, I'M GONNA REGRESS A LITTLE BIT BACK. AS FAR AS THE SETBACK [01:00:01] ON THE BUILDINGS, UM, BY OFFSETTING THEM, WE HAVE INCREASED THE SETBACK THAT IS MORE IN LINE WITH THE HOUSES THAT ARE IN THE GENERAL AREA. UH, WE'RE SHOWING A 22 FOOT, UH, SETBACK FROM THE NORTH OLIVE STREET. AND, UM, AND THEN THE, THE UNIT THAT IS, UH, OFFSET CLOSER TO OLIVE STREET IS AT 17 FEET. UM, WE DO, AND WE DID ACKNOWLEDGE THE COMMENTS OF MR. HALL REGARDING THE ROOF MATERIALS, UM, THE SCREENING OF THE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS. UH, WE WILL BE INCORPORATING A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THAT. AND ON OUR REVISED SITE PLAN, WE SHOW THE POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR THE, UM, AIR CONDITIONING UNITS AND ALSO SHOWING THAT WE WILL PUT, UH, LANDSCAPING AROUND 'EM SO THAT THEY ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM NORTH OLIVE. THEY WILL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM, UH, DAWSON STREET. NOW. THERE YOU GO. I SEE THE SITE PLAN THERE AS FAR AS LOT COVERAGE IS CONCERNED. UM, MR. HALL, IF YOU COULD GO TO THE SITE PLAN BEFORE THIS ONE AND THAT'LL SHOW THAT WE ARE BELOW THE 50% LOT COVERAGE. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES, IT IS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING THAT WE ARE NOT TO EXCEED THE 50%, UH, LOT COVERAGE. NOW, IF THERE'S ANOTHER GUIDELINE SOMEPLACE ELSE THAT INCLUDES THE PAVING, I, I'D LIKE TO SEE IT BECAUSE I COULD NOT FIND IT IN ANY OF YOUR GUIDELINES. AND I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS AND BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, CITIZEN COMMENTS. WE DO. UM, THE FIRST COMES FROM TODD WARWICK, 8 0 4 DAWSON. I'M THE OWNER OF 8 0 4 DAWSON, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. 8 0 4 DAWSON IS A 100 PLUS YEAR OLD HOME HISTORIC HOME, WHICH I HAVE RESTORED. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN NO WAY FITS IN THE DI ANNUITY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY AS TO MASSING HEIGHT, DENSITY, AND SETBACKS. THE DEVELOPER NEEDS TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND NEIGHBORS TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT FITS IN WITH THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FOLLOWS THE CITY GUIDELINES AND IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT AS PROPOSED. THANK YOU. NEXT COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS, PRESIDENT OF THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY, ONE OF 17 MILLION CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO CONCURS WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FOR THE REPOSE DEVELOPMENT AT DAWSON AND NORTH HOLLOW. THE THREE TWO STORY STRUCTURES APPEAR TO EXCEED LOT, LOT COVERAGE GUIDELINES, AND THE MESSING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S HISTORIC BUILDING PATTERNS. UM, THE NEXT COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE DIGNITY HILL, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, 9 22 NORTH PINE. WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, ESPECIALLY AS THEY RELATE TO THE ITEMS THAT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS HEIGHTS, MASSING, SETBACKS AND HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. UM, THE DISTORTED FRONT ELEVATION RENDERING IS DEPICTED BUILDINGS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS INDICATE RISE. PLANS CONTINUE TO SHOW THAT THE FRONT SETBACKS ARE NOT EQUIVALENT WITH THE ADJACENT BLOCK FACES AND AFTER DECADES, THIS PROPOSAL SHOWS THAT DAWSON NO LONGER IS PRIMARY FRONTAGE FOR A HOUSE AT THAT LOCATION. UM, AND THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. THERE IS A LETTER IN YOUR FOLDER AS WELL FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'D LIKE TO ASK CORY A QUESTION, COREY, ON THE, ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE FOR, UH, AGENDAS. MM-HMM. , WHY IS 21? UM, HAVING NO LINK TO THE DOCUMENTS. WE'RE NOT SURE IT'S A TECHNICAL GLITCH, BUT WE DID HAVE A LINK, UM, THAT WAS POSTED TO THE WEB JUST FROM A DIFFERENT LOCATION. UM, SO IT IS ON THE CITY'S AGENDA PAGE, JUST NOT ON THAT P D F AGENDA REPORT. UM, SO WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT LINK TO, UM, SEVERAL GROUPS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN THAT. OKAY. 'CAUSE I'M NOT ABLE TO, I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE I KNOW YOU SEND OUT EVERYTHING, BUT THAT'S WHERE I GO 'CAUSE IT'S EASIEST. YEAH, YEAH. UH, THAT P D F THAT WAS GENERATED, THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THE LINK WASN'T WORKING, BUT THESE WERE POSTED ONLINE ON THE CITY'S AGENDA PAGE. WELL THEN CAN, CAN I ASK YOU TO, TO DO ME A FAVOR AND, AND SCROLL TO THE ELEVATIONS AND LEAVE THOSE WHILE THE DISCUSSION'S GOING ON INSTEAD OF THE FLOOR PLAN? YEAH, THAT'S PAGE NINE. AT LEAST UNTIL SOMEBODY SAYS THEY WANNA SEE SOMETHING ELSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT THE SUB THE SUBMISSION THAT, THAT YOU'RE SHOWING HERE. THIS, THIS IS A, A LATE SUBMISSION. THIS IS NOT THE SUBMISSION THAT IS IN OUR PACKETS OR THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YES. THIS IS A SUBMISSION THAT WAS RECEIVED AFTER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS DRAFTED. UM, [01:05:01] THERE WAS NOT TIME TO REVISE THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, BUT WE WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND POST THIS SO THAT IT WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC TO VIEW. BUT I MEAN, MY QUESTION IS THE SITE PLAN THAT I SEE IN HERE. OH, THERE IT IS. I'M SORRY. THERE'S A, THERE'S 41 PAGES. I GUESS I'M, I'M GETTING LOST . SORRY. SO IN YOUR FOLDER, SO THERE WERE TWO FILES THAT WERE POSTED ON THE AGENDA PAGE. THERE WAS THE CASE FILE AS WELL AS THE ONE THAT'S LABELED AS LATE. UM, THE ONE THAT'S LABELED AS LATE IS WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW. I'VE, I'VE FOUND IT. THANK YOU. I, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT TO THE, TO THE, UH, OWNER OR TO THE, UH, APPLICANT. UH, YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I STRUGGLE WITH IN, IN REVIEWING PROJECTS IS, IS TO, TO TRY NOT TO GET INVOLVED TOO DEEPLY INTO THE DESIGN OF A PROJECT. BECAUSE, I MEAN, HISTORY'S FULL OF THINGS THAT BECOME HISTORIC THAT NOBODY KNOWS HOW, HOW THEY DID THE THINGS THAT THEY DO, YOU KNOW? AND, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE ROOF LINES, THERE WAS ANOTHER PROJECT THAT CAME BEFORE, AND I WONDER WHAT THE RATIONALE BETWEEN HAVING TWO, TWO GABLES MEET IF YOU'RE DESIGNING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME. THIS IS NOT AN ACCIDENT. 'CAUSE NORMALLY THIS OCCURS WHEN SOMETHING, WHEN SOMEONE'S LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION AND THEY HAVE NO OTHER OPTION THAN TO BUTT UP TO, UH, DOWN, DOWN SLOPING E UH, UH, GABLES THAT IN, IN TERMS OF LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION THAT WOULD MATCH, UH, OR THAT WOULD, THAT, THAT WOULD BE A, A HISTORIC, UM, FACSIMILE THAT YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE SEEKING TO, UH, BE INFLUENCED OR INFORMED BY THESE REOCCURRING SOLUTIONS THAT ARE REALLY AFTERTHOUGHTS. AND SO, SO, YOU KNOW, I, UH, I HESITATE TO SAY THAT IT, THAT, THAT, THAT SOLUTION IS A LIMITATION WITH RESPECT TO, UH, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, IS IT, IS IT PROVABLE OR NOT? I, I JUST, UH, WONDER WHY, UM, YOU HAVEN'T, UH, SOUGHT A, A ROOF LINE THAT GIVES YOU TWO UNITS, BUT THAT ISN'T AS CHALLENGABLE AS THAT ROOF LINE CAN, CAN YOU GIMME A RESPONSE TO THAT? IT'S FOR THE APPLICANT. YES. YES. UH, WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT, AND ON ONE OF THE CONCEPTS, AND ONE OF THE STUDIES THAT WE CAME UP WITH, UH, WE ACTUALLY HAD ONE ROOF THAT WENT OVER THE WHOLE BUILDING. AND THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE STAFF WAS THAT THAT MASSING OF THAT ROOF TYPE WAS WAY TOO BIG AND THAT IT WOULD NEVER BE ACCEPTED, UH, BY THE COMMISSIONERS OR IN, OR EVEN THE, THE STAFF. AND SO WE DID GO BACK AND REEVALUATE THAT BECAUSE WE WERE CONCERNED AS FAR AS MASSING IS CONCERNED OF THE BUILDINGS. WELL, THEN I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF A QUESTION JUST FOR STAFF. UH, IS THAT, UH, AND YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO IT BEING A, A, A CONVENTIONAL ROOF THAT DIDN'T QUITE ADDRESS TWO UNITS, RIGHT, TWO INDEPENDENT UNITS, HOW DOES STAFF SEE THAT WITH RESPECT TO, UM, IT NOT BEING IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS? RIGHT. IN TERMS OF COMMENTS, UM, CAN STAFF ANSWER ANSWER THAT REALLY HARD, VAGUE QUESTION? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTOOD QUESTION. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD, BERG. OH, I, I WAS, UH, GONNA TRY TO RESPOND. UM, UH, BUT I, I COULD BE, UH, MISUNDERSTANDING YOU, UH, GABE. UM, BUT, UM, IN REGARDS TO, UH, I GUESS TO PREFACE THIS A LITTLE BIT, UH, PREVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT, UM, HAD, UH, A SPECIFIC WIDTH. AND WITH THAT WIDTH CAME, UH, ROOF MASSING AND STAFF PROVIDED THE COMMENTS THAT THE ROOF MASSING THAT WAS SUBMITTED, WHILE THE FORM IN GENERAL, UH, IN ARCHITECTURAL FORM MAY HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE, UH, STAFF WAS COMMENTING THAT THE OVERALL WIDTH OF THE ROOF AND ITS MASSING WASN'T CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE'S NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A ROOF OF THAT FORM FOUND, UH, IN THAT WIDTH WITHIN THE DISTRICT HISTORICALLY. UM, SO WITH THE [01:10:01] APPLICANT COMING BACK AND REVISING THESE ROOFS, STAFF IS STILL GENERALLY GIVING THE SAME COMMENT. HOWEVER, WITH THE REDUCTION IN WIDTH, UM, IT, YOU'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE STARTING TO SEE ROOF FORMS AND MASSING AND PROFILE OF THE ROOF. IT'S A BIT MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU'D FIND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT. UH, BUT IF YOU COULD, UH, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THE, AT THE, UH, THE SITE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE, THE WIDTH OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES IS STILL A BIT ATYPICAL FOR WHAT'S FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT. THEREFORE, ROOF FORMS ARE GENERALLY GONNA FOLLOW SUIT. UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT, UH, MAYBE THAT GIVES SOME INFORMATION IN THE STAFF'S COMMENTS. WELL, I, I, I THINK THE DISCUSSION IS GOOD FOR THE APPLICANT TO HEAR. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY WAY THAT I KNOW, UH, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, A A A FELLOW DESIGNER BRINGS SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO YOU, AND YOUR, YOUR IMMEDIATE COMMENT IS, WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT? YOU'RE ONLY GONNA HAVE ROOT PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. RIGHT. BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THAT PERSONAL COMMENT, RIGHT? THAT IS A VERY, VERY WELL, UH, UH, KIND OF SAID COMMENT. I, I DON'T THINK I INVENTED IT, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT'S JUST A BAD IDEA, RIGHT? BUT, UM, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ALLOWABLE? SEE, SO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT WE, AT LEAST FOR THE DISCUSSION, HAVE A, UH, SOME DIALOGUE ABOUT WHETHER IT'S NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE IT'S ROOF FORM IS NOT, UM, ACCEPTABLE WITH RESPECT TO HIS HISTORIC INTEGRITY, OR WHETHER THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL OPINION, AND IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A, UH, MAKE OR BREAK. AND THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED AN ANSWER, BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOU ATTEMPTING TO ANSWER AN AGE OLD HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER WITHOUT BEING, YOU KNOW, MEAN. I, I THINK, SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, THE, THE QUESTIONING THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ HAS ABOUT THIS ISSUE. 'CAUSE IT'S THE THING THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME. I WAS THE ONE WHO HAD SUGGESTED THAT THEY LOOK AT STAGGERING, UH, THE FLOOR PLAN. SO I APPRECIATE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS EXPLORED THAT AND BROUGHT THIS TO US. WE HAD A VERY SIMILAR KIND OF PROJECT IN, UH, TOBIN HILL WHERE IT WAS A DUPLEX AND TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE, UH, ONE OF THE LARGER MANSIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THAT, UH, THERE WAS ONE OF THE UNITS HAD A FRONT FACING GABLE, BUT THE OTHER UNIT, UH, WAS ROOFED WITH A, A LARGER HIP ROOF. AND SO IT, IT AVOIDED THIS KIND OF ODD SITUATION OF TWO GABLE GROVE COMING TOGETHER IN A MYSTERIOUS VALLEY. AND LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ IS SAYING THAT YOU'RE JUST ASKING FOR TROUBLES FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, PLUS IT JUST LOOKS ODD FROM A HISTORICAL STANDPOINT TO BE DOING SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, UH, ADVISABLE AT ANY TIME WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO SHED WATER OFF A ROOF. SO I THINK IN THE PLANNING, THE, THE FRACTURING OF THE MASSES AS WE'RE SEEING IN THE SITE PLAN, I THINK IS HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I'M JUST WONDERING IF MAYBE, UH, THERE COULD BE MORE EXPLORATION IN ROOFS, PERHAPS TREATING IT IN A SIMILAR MANNER WHERE IT IS A, IT IS A DUPLEX, BUT THEY, WE DO HAVE, ONE OF THE UNITS HAS A FRONT FACING GABLE. THE OTHER IS, IS SORT OF SUBSUMED UNDER A LARGER HIP ROOF SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF NORMALIZE THE, THE MASSING AND SILHOUETTE OF THIS BUILDING A LITTLE BIT WHILE STILL, UH, RESPECTING THE FACT THAT THESE ARE, ARE TWO SEPARATE UNITS. SO THOSE WERE MY COMMENTS. AND KIND OF REALLY AS A TAG ALONG TO WHAT THE COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ WAS SAYING, THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP, PART OF ONE OF THE D R C MEETINGS. THE LAST ONE, I THINK, UM, THERE'S A LOT. I MEAN, THE ROOF, WE DISCUSSED THAT AS WELL THAT DAY, BUT I THINK WE ALSO DISCUSSED A LOT ABOUT THE MASSING AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF THIS PROJECT. AND I THINK YOU MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT TO BE ABLE TO BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR YOU. BUT I, I STILL HAVE, WHAT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME IS THERE'S A LOT OF STIPULATIONS FROM STAFF. WE DISCUSSED THEM AT D R C AND THEN YOU SUBMITTED THESE LATE DOCUMENTS, UM, THAT STAFF HAS NOT HAD TIME TO REVIEW, AND, AND THEY, THEY ARE ANSWERING A LOT OF STAFF COMMENTS, BUT A LOT OF YOUR ANSWERS ARE MORE LIKE, WELL, WE CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE THEN THE PROJECT IS NOT ABLE TO DO IT. THE FRONT SETBACKS, WE DISCUSSED THAT A LOT, UM, ESPECIALLY ON, UM, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT STREET, BUT THE MASSING, I MEAN, AND I DO FEEL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD A LITTLE BIT THERE, AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL PROVING, YOU KNOW, A BIG PROJECT LIKE THAT WHEN THERE'S NO TWO STORY BUILDINGS AROUND THAT AREA IN THE BLOCK. AND, AND IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO, TO REALLY FIND THAT, UM, SINCE IT IS A CORNER LOT, UM, IT'S AN IMPORTANT STREET AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WANT US TO MAKE SURE WE REALLY ARE CAREFUL WITH THAT. AND, AND THE ROOF IS PART OF MAKING THAT HEIGHT, UH, OF [01:15:01] THOSE TWO STORIES. SO I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION, BUT WE'VE ALSO DISCUSSED IT IN D R C, AND I GUESS WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD. UH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A, A QUICK, QUICK COMMENT. UM, 'CAUSE, UH, I, I'VE NOTICED IN, IN TERMS OF THE CHANGING FABRIC IN THE CITY, EVEN IN HISTORIC ENVIRONMENTS, BUT MAYBE MORE LIBERAL ENVIRONMENTS, LIKE, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, AND YOU KNOW, RIGHT HERE OUTSIDE OF HILDEBRAND ON ALAMO HEIGHTS AREA, FOR THE, FOR THE, FOR THE MOST PART, IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF SAN ANTONIO, RIGHT? UM, THERE ARE ONE STORY COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE CONDOS THAT HAVE GONE UP TWO STORY, UH, AND THEY'RE JUST SEGMENTS, IF THEY'RE BALANCED PROPERLY WITHIN THE, THE OVERALL CONTEXT AND THE WORK IS DONE WELL, THEY REALLY DO ADD, UH, UH, A DYNAMIC THAT DIDN'T EXIST THAT IS NOT ONLY PLEASING TO THE EYE, THAT ALSO CREATES, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE OF, UM, A VIBRANT COMMUNITY. SO MUCH OF IT, I THINK, BECOMES A QUESTION OF THE MASSING. I THINK THE MASSING IS, IS, IS THE REAL ISSUE, UH, WITHOUT SAYING THAT CHANGE IS NOT POSSIBLE, RIGHT? UM, SO JUST, YOU KNOW, I I I, I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THE PROJECT BEYOND WHAT I'M SEEING IN THESE, UH, ANIMATIONS. THIS ANIMATION THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, THAT'S BEFORE US RIGHT NOW IS, IS, IS A, I THINK SEEMS TO BE A BETTER REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN THE LAST ANIMATION IS, DOES IT SEEM TO REACH THE LEVEL OF, OF, OF, UH, SHADOW AND PLAY? UM, BUT, UH, I, I THINK ON ITS ON ITS, UH, ON ITS OWN, YOU KNOW, MERIT BEING PRESENTED TO US. IT, IT SEEMS TO ADD SOMETHING. IT'S ALSO IN A, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M LOOKING AT, THAT I'VE SEEN IN HERE IS THAT IT HAS A, UH, A UNIQUE, UH, PLACEMENT ON THAT CORNER, AND THEN WITH AN ALLEY, IT KIND OF LOANS IT, THE ABILITY TO ADD SOMETHING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WASN'T PREVIOUSLY THERE. I DON'T NECESSARILY FEEL THAT IT TAKES AWAY. UM, HOWEVER, THERE'S ALWAYS THAT, THAT THAT'S, THAT, THAT ONE CONCERN OF THE STRUCTURE CLOSEST TO THE TWO STORY AS OPPOSED TO THE STREET, THE CORNER IN THE ALLEY. UH, THANK YOU. THIS IS, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER. UM, I WAS IN THE LAST D R C AND WE DID TALK ABOUT SETBACKS AND, AND STAGGERING THE FACADES AND THE MASSING AND ALL THAT. AND I'M STILL HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH, UH, I THINK THE STAGGERING OF THE FRONT ELEVATIONS HELPS, BUT THEN AGAIN, WE'RE PUSHING, UH, TWO OF THE UNITS, WELL, THREE OF THE UNITS, UH, MUCH CLOSER TO THE, UH, OLIVE STREET. UM, THAT IS NOT TYPICAL OF THAT BLOCK. UH, ONE THING THAT'S NOT SHOWN IN THIS APPLICATION IS WHAT THE, UH, THE AJA, THE WHOLE BLOCK IS IN TERMS OF ITS SETBACK. UM, THE, THE LEFT HAND UNIT IS TWO FEET BACK FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, BUT THEN YOU, UH, ON THE OTHER, UH, SECTIONS ARE MUCH CLOSER TO THE STREET, WHICH IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH, WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, I ALSO, AT THE D R C EXPRESSED CONCERN, UM, WITH THESE, UM, I GUESS YOU'RE TRYING TO GIVE MORE PRIVATE SPACE ON THE SECOND FLOOR, BUT THESE CANTILEVER BALCONIES OFF THE REAR, UH, WHICH ADDS TO THE MASS AND THE, THE SCALE OF THE BUILDINGS AS YOU LOOK FROM DAWSON STREET. UM, SO I STILL HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH, UH, WITH HOW THIS PROJECT'S DEVELOPING. UM, COMBINING TWO OF THE UNITS INTO DUPLEXES OR FOUR OF THE UNITS INTO TWO DUPLEXES. UH, YOU DO PROVIDE, UH, OPEN LAND BETWEEN THE SOUTH DUPLEX AND THE ADJACENT HISTORIC PROPERTY. AND THEN, UH, BETWEEN THE TWO DUPLEXES. AND MY ONE CONCERN I HAVE IS THE PEOPLE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EACH DUPLEX. WHERE IS THEIR OUTDOOR SPACE? UH, THEY'VE GOT VERY LITTLE FRONT YARD, THEY HAVE NO BACKYARD. UM, I'M BASICALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE DENSITY OF, OF DEVELOPMENT ON THESE, THESE THREE LOTS , [01:20:07] UH, DO YOU WANT ME TO RESPOND BACK TO THOSE? UH, CERTAINLY. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER FETZER, UM, AS FAR AS THE STAGGERING OF THE, OF THE UNITS, THE ONES THAT ARE CLOSER TO OLIVE STREET ON OUR SITE PLAN, WE'RE SHOWING THEM TO BE APPROXIMATELY 17 FEET FROM THE, UH, PROPERTY LINE. WHEN YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE RIGHT OF WAY OF FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE STREET, YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET, IF I HAD TO GIVE A NUMBER RIGHT NOW. HOWEVER, THE 17 FEET THAT WE'RE SHOWING IS APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET SHY OF WHAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE THERE IN THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES. UM, AS FAR AS THE COMMENT ABOUT THE REAR BALCONIES, WE DID REDUCE 'EM. AND WE ARE, WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO JUST HAVE THEM SIT OVER THE, THE GARAGE WHERE THERE IS NO CANTILEVERING. WE DON'T OBJECT TO THAT. UM, WE DID TRY TO ADDRESS THE FENESTRATION AS FAR AS THE DAWSON STREET IS ON THE, UH, UNIT THAT IS RIGHT THERE AT THE CORNER. AND SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS AND COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE MADE PREVIOUSLY, WE DID TAKE 'EM INTO CONSIDERATION, WHICH WERE GOOD, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS, AND WE HOPE THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING THEM, UM, THAT MAKES IT, UH, MORE RESIDENTIAL LIKE. AND I BELIEVE THE COMMISSIONER BOS HAS ALSO SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS PROJECT IS APPEAR, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UH, A LITTLE ATYPICAL SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEE THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, UH, IN THIS AREA, BUT WE ARE BEING RESPECTFUL TO THE RESIDENTIAL CONTEXT OF THE, OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND WE DID REDUCE THE SIZING OF THE COLUMNS DOWN TO THE SIX INCHES FOR COMMENTS OF THE, UM, OF THE STAFF. AND, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TRIED AND WE ARE WORKING TO BE, UM, CONSIDERATE AND CONCERNED WITH THE COMMENTS THAT ARE BEING DONE, BUT STILL TRYING TO MAKE THIS A FEASIBLE AND WORKABLE PROJECT FOR OUR CLIENT. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UM, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WAS IN THE LAST D R C, SO I'D ASK A FELLOW COMMISSIONER WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS, UH, ABOUT, UH, THE SETBACK ON DAWSON. I'M NOTICING THE HISTORIC SETBACK LINE THERE IS 19 FEET PLUS OR MINUS, AND WHAT IS PROPOSED IS 12. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS IN THE LAST D R C, THIS GROUP? I DO REMEMBER, CAN, UH, STAFF SHOW US THE SITE PLAN? I, I DON'T KNOW IF THE NUMBERS ARE EXACT, BUT IT SEEMED THAT FOR OUR CONVERSATION, THAT WE WERE MATCHING THAT PROPERTY, UM, ON DAWSON, IF I'M NOT, UM, WHEN WE TALKED AT D R C, YOU WERE MATCHING THE SETBACK. WELL, YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE MEASUREMENTS AT HAND, BUT YOU DID MENTION THAT YOU WERE MATCHING THE SETBACK ON DAWSON. I REMEMBER THAT IN THE CONVERSATION. AND WE DISCUSSED THE FRONT SETBACK ON, UM, ON THE OTHER STREET, UM, AND, AND THAT OLIVE STREET. YEAH, ON OLIVE STREET. AND, AND WE LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY, UM, THE SINGLE HOUSE STORY HOUSE. AND, AND, AND THAT WAS PART OF MY, UM, CONCERN IS YOU'RE TRYING TO MATCH IT, BUT YOU'RE NOT, BECAUSE THE ALREADY ON LOT ONE, THE SECOND PROPERTY IS IN FRONT. AND I, I THINK FROM OUR CONVERSATION, I UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU WERE GONNA LOOK AT PUSHING IT BACK AND, AND THAT PART OF THAT CONVERSATION WAS WHAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH CHAIRMAN FETZER, WAS IF YOU WERE REMOVING THAT CANNULAR, THEN THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THAT EXTRA FIVE FEET TO BE ABLE TO PUSH BACK THAT PROPERTY. SO AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE HAVING CONVERSATIONS AT D R C, BUT WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD. THAT'S WHY ALL THESE COMMENTS FROM STAFF ARE STILL THERE. SO IF THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, THESE, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROPERTY, THIS PROJECT. WELL, I DON'T RECALL THE SETBACK, UH, OFF OF DAWSON STREET, UH, BEING SPOKEN. UH, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT OUR SITE PLAN, WE DO HAVE ROOM ON THE SITE TO MOVE IT AWAY FROM DAWSON STREET. HOWEVER, WE DO THEN NEED TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PROXIMITY OF THE OTHER UNITS THAT ARE ON THE SECOND LOT, SO WE COULD REDUCE OR, OR INCREASE THE FRONTAGE ON DAWSON STREET. THIS IS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. I, I, I KIND OF FEEL THAT [01:25:01] BY THE FRONTAGE MOVING TO THE, TO THE OTHER STREET, THAT IT CHANGES THE, IT CHANGES THE RULE. I MEAN, IT CHANGES THE RULE BY CODE, UH, THAT THEIR SETBACK CHANGES. AND IT, IT, IT IS A MAJOR CHANGE FROM ONE STREET TO THE OTHER. AND, AND IT'S NOT LIKE WHAT IT WAS, BUT THIS IS A NEW CONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING THOSE RULES. I THINK THE CONCERNS THAT CHAIRMAN FETZER WERE, WAS SAYING, UH, THEY, THEY FLOAT UP A LITTLE HIGHER, A BACKYARD PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO, TO DO THINGS. UH, AND, AND FROM THERE, THE, THE GENERAL, UM, UH, PERCENTAGE OF DECREASE, UH, YOU KNOW, IS, IS, IS, IS, UH, IT SEEMS TO BE ADDRESSING THE MASSING, BUT ABOUT THE SETBACKS, I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT REMAINS CHALLENGABLE, RIGHT? IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THEY COULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND GET A, GET A WAIVER ON THAT, AND THEY PROBABLY WOULD GET IT BECAUSE IT, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH, WITH, UH, WHAT, WHAT THE RULES WOULD SAY FOR SETBACKS ON A SIDE YARD. UH, COMMISSIONER VELAZQUEZ, I GUESS I WAS ASKING THE, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH, I GUESS I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION. SO WHAT THAT DIS WHAT THAT DISCUSSION ENTAILED IN THE D R C? BECAUSE THE GUIDELINES SUGGEST NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT BE IN FRONT OF ADJACENT HISTORIC PROPERTIES, AND THE, THE FRONTAGE ON THE CORNER IS, IS IRRELEVANT TO ME. UH, THIS IS THE PROJECTS ALONG OLIVE ARE SITTING IN FRONT OF, ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, MORE SENSITIVE WAY BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE VARIED, BUT THEY'RE SITTING IN FRONT OF THE ADJACENT HISTORIC HOUSE, AND THE, THE STRUCTURE, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ON, ON DAWSON IS SITTING SUBSTANTIALLY IN FRONT OF THE ADJACENT HISTORIC HOUSE. SO THAT, THAT WAS THE NATURE OF MY, MY QUESTIONS THERE. AND THEN I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD NEED A VARIANCE BECAUSE, UH, U D C SETBACKS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE HISTORIC GUIDELINE SETBACKS AS IT PERTAIN TO THE HISTORIC STRUCTURES. SO THAT PROCESS WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY, I DON'T THINK. YEAH, THIS CHAIRMAN FETZER, AND I AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER GROUP, GROUP THAT, UH, WHEN WE TALKED IN THE D R C, UH, THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE CANTILEVER, UH, BALCONIES OFF THE REAR, AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION THAT IF THOSE WENT AWAY, THEN UH, ALL OF THE STRUCTURES COULD MOVE FURTHER BACK ON OLIVE STREET, WHICH WOULD BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE, UH, HISTORIC STRUCTURES SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY. UM, I'M LOOKING AT A GOOGLE EARTH MAP, AND THERE ARE, UH, TH TWO MORE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURES SOUTH OF, UH, THE ONE THAT'S SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, AND THEY'RE ALL ABOUT THE SAME, UH, SETBACK FROM THE, FROM THE STREET. AND SO WE'VE GOT, UH, THREE OF THESE FIVE UNITS SIGNIFICANTLY IN FRONT OF THE HISTORIC, UH, OLIVE STREET, UH, FACING HOUSES. ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS WE DISCUSSED WAS FENESTRATION. AND ON THE LATE SUBMISSION, I SEE THAT THE APPLICANT ADDED FENESTRATION ON THE DAWSON FACING DAWSON. I JUST FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS MAY NOT REALLY UNDERSTOOD YET THAT RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE. I MEAN, THE FENESTRATIONS REALLY DON'T HOW THEY'RE PLACED ON THAT WALL IN THAT. THAT'S, UM, THE ONE LITTLE, WHAT'S THE, HE GOT THERE TWO WINDOWS THAT ARE KIND OF SPREAD OUT. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD FIND EITHER IS, YOU KNOW, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR HISTORICALLY FOUND. SO I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, I MEAN THERE, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE APPROVING SOMETHING WITH ALL THESE STIPULATIONS AND LATE SUBMISSIONS WHERE I ALSO FEEL THE APPLICANT IS NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING, UM, THESE COMMENTS YET. UM, THE SETBACKS, AND WE'VE DISCUSSED IT SEVERAL TIMES AND, AND, AND THE APPLICANT DID NOT FOLLOW THAT. THE STIPULATION IS STILL THERE. WHAT WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT WAS THE WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT ROOF AND NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE THERE. WE TALKED ABOUT LIKE LOWERING THE ROOF. SO THERE'LL STILL BE A TWO STORY MORE LINE WITH THE ONE STORY NEXT DOOR. THAT'S A VERY TALL ONE STORY. WE'RE STILL, I THINK EVEN THE APPLICANT SAID THEY COULD LOWER THE ROOF LINE BEING DONE IN THE LATE SUBMISSION. I DON'T KNOW IF ANOTHER D R C IS WHAT THIS PROJECT IS NEEDED, BUT AS PRESENTED TODAY, I CANNOT, [01:30:02] WELL, UH, THE ONE COMMENT THAT I'D LIKE TO RESPOND ON THAT IF I'M ALLOWED TO, UH, AS FAR AS THE DAWSON STREET ELEVATION, UH, THE COMMISSIONER IS QUESTIONING THE FENESTRATION ALONG THAT. WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE, THAT'S A TWO STORY HOUSE THAT IS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER. THAT ELEVATION HAS NOTHING IN CONTEXT THAT'S CLOSE TO WHAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO. SO I RESPECTFULLY, UH, DISAGREE WITH THAT COMMENT. AS FAR AS FENESTRATION IS CONCERNED, I, I WANNA, I WANNA ECHO, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER GRU'S REMARKS, ALTHOUGH I, I, I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME THAT, THERE MUST BE ANOTHER WAY TO SAY IT. UH, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE FENESTRATION, UM, YOU SEE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT A, A COMMISSIONER CAN SAY IN TERMS OF TELLING YOU WHERE TO PUT THE WINDOWS, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY INAPPROPRIATE, BUT IT KIND OF LEAVES YOU HANGING, RIGHT? TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO PUT THE WINDOWS IN A WAY THAT IS APPROPRIATE. AND NOT JUST WITH RESPECT TO, UM, HISTORIC PLACEMENT OF WINDOWS, BUT JUST KIND OF RULE OF THUMB PLACEMENT OF WINDOWS, WHICH, WHICH CAN BE KIND OF A, A, UM, KIND OF RUDE TO EVEN SAY THAT SOMEONE KNOWS THE RIGHT WAY TO PUT WINDOWS VERSUS THE WAY THAT SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD PUT WINDOWS. BUT THE PURPOSE BEING TO COMMUNICATE, RIGHT, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT THERE'S AN ORDER TO HOW WINDOWS ARE, ARE, ARE PLACED, DO THEY RELATE TO EACH OTHER? AND IN THE ELEVATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE WHITE BOX, UH, IT COULD BE GRAPHIC BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU COULD EVEN PUT A WINDOW THAT CLOSE TO THE CORNER WITHOUT IT BEING A, A, A CORNER WINDOW THAT TYPICALLY WOULD WRAP AROUND TO THE OTHER SIDE, THAT YOUR INTENTION WOULD BE TO CREATE A CORNER WHERE THE LIGHT COMES IN FROM BOTH SIDES. SO IT MIGHT BE A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION PROBLEM THAT, THAT NEEDS TO REALLY LOOK AT THE PLACEMENT OF THE WINDOW FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A WORKING DRAWING. THAT, THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY WILL HAVE TO BE BETTER BALANCED IN THE PLACEMENT OF THAT WINDOW SO THAT IT CAN ACTUALLY, UH, UM, GO WHERE YOU, WHERE YOU, UH, UH, UH, INTENDED TO GO. BUT THE WAY THAT THE GRAPHIC IS PRESENTED, IT DOESN'T LOOK, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOU COULD EVEN DO THAT NECESSARILY, OR, OR THAT IF YOU DID, YOUR INTENTION WAS TO GET THAT WINDOW ALL THE WAY UP AS CLOSE TO THE CORNER AS YOU POSSIBLY COULD SEE FROM THE OUTSIDE. IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WINDOW IS RIGHT ON YOUR WALL ON THE INSIDE, AND THAT REFLECTS AN IMBALANCE ON THE OUTSIDE, AESTHETICALLY. UM, AND, AND YOU JUST, ONE LAST THING WITH RESPECT TO THAT SITE PLAN, I, I, I REALLY MUST DEFER TO FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I, I CAN SEE, UH, THAT, THAT THAT LINE THAT, THAT YOU'RE AT A NEAR MISS. THAT THE REALITY IS YOU COULD GET OUT OF THE WAY OF THE SITE LINE OF THOSE HOUSES ON, UH, ON THE, UH, ON THE, THE HISTORIC SIDE. UM, IT YOU BE, BECAUSE YOU DID ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES WITH THE NINE FOOT DRIVEWAYS OVER HERE, YOU HAVE A 13, SO YOU HAVE LEEWAY, AND IT MAY QU IT MAY CAUSE YOU TO, TO, TO, TO MOVE IN SLIGHT MORE. UM, BUT YOU HAVE SO MUCH GOING ON, IT SEEMS THAT THESE LITTLE TWEAKS THAT YOU COULD MAKE THE REMOVAL OF THE BALCONY IN THE BACK, UH, TO SLIDE THESE BUILDINGS BACK, THAT ALL THESE LITTLE THINGS, THEY'D BE SACRIFICES. BUT I THINK THEY WOULD GET YOU WHERE YOU NEEDED TO GET, WHICH IS TO HAVE YOUR PROJECT, UH, UH, FIND SOME APPROVAL. UM, SO MY QUESTION, OKAY, I JUST DIDN'T WANNA SPEND TIME HERE ON, UM, WE HAVE OTHER APPLICANTS WAITING TO DESIGN. UM, I MOVE THIS PROJECT TO D R C. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO D R C. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE UNMUTE, RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO ITEM 22. THAT'S EDWARD'S CASE AS WELL, SO WE'RE GONNA GIVE HIM A LITTLE TO GET THE NEXT APPLICANT ON THE LINE. I CAN DO IT. [01:35:13] OKAY, ED. OKAY. [22. 20-5845 Address/Description: 819 LAMAR ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-001 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: Michael Cisneros/Harmony Custom Homes Request: Construction of a 1-story residential structure City Council Dist.: 2] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 22 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 22 0 0 1 8 19. LAMAR, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE VACANT LOT AT EIGHT 19. LAMAR LOCATED WITHIN THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS. A THROUGH Q STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PRIOR TO RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION, NOTING THAT THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL FEATURE A SETBACK THAT IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THOSE FOUND HISTORICALLY ON THE BLOCK SOON, THAT THE PROPOSED FRONT FACING WOULD BE ELIMINATED AS NOTED IN FINDING H THREE THAT WOULD, OR COMPOSITION SIDING IS APPROPRIATE IN A FOUR INCH EXPOSURE WITH MITRE CORNERS IN A SMOOTH FINISH COLUMN, DETAILS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THE PROPOSED BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING SHOULD BE ELIMINATED AND SIDING SHOULD NOTE, SHOULD NOT CHANGE PROFILES ON ONE ELEVATION. FOUR, THAT WINDOWS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH STAFF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION BE INSTALLED IS NOTED IN FINDING K AND IN THE APPLICABLE CITATIONS. FIVE ADMINISTRATION BE ADDED TO BLANK WALLS ON THE EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS, AND THAT WINDOWS BE GROUPED AND DETAILED, BE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE FOUND HISTORICALLY ON THE BLOCK. WINDOWS SHOULD BE SEPARATED BY A WOODEN VOLUME OF SIX INCHES IN WIDTH. SHOULD FEATURE SIZES AND PROFILES FOUND HISTORICALLY WITHIN THE BLOCK AND DISTRICT AND SIX, THAT FRONT, THAT THE FRONT WINDOW, OR EXCUSE ME, THAT THE FRONT WALKWAY LEAD TO THE WALKWAY AT THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE LANDSCAPING PLAN BE DEVELOPED AND THAT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED FROM VIEW, FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. UH, THE APPLICANT, MICHAEL CISNEROS ON THE LINE. HELLO, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. I, UM, UH, THANK YOU FOR ALL FOR, UH, LISTENING TO MY CASE. I JUST, UM, WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND, AND JUST, UH, ALL THE THINGS THAT EDWARD HAD HAD JUST NOTED ON THERE. UM, WE, WE HAD ORIGINALLY STARTED BACK IN JANUARY WITH A TWO STORY PLAN, AND THERE WAS THINGS THAT CAME ABOUT WITH THE MASS ROOF. THE TWO STORY DID NOT MATCH WHAT WAS WITHIN THE BLOCK. UM, AND WHAT I'VE SINCE THEN DONE, WE'VE GONE AHEAD AND REDESIGNED THE PLAN. WE'VE GONE AHEAD AND DONE A, UM, OR CREATED A ONE STORY PLAN. UM, AND WE'VE KIND OF EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THAT LIST THAT EVER JUST NOTED ON THERE, UM, EXCEPT FOR THE BOARD IN BATTEN. UM, WE'VE, UH, WE'VE, AND WHICH I JUST DIDN'T, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS DRAWING HAD. THAT'S WHAT THIS DRAWING HAS IS AVOIDING BAT AND DRAWING. BUT WE'VE SEPARATED WINDOWS. UM, WE'VE, WE'VE ADJUSTED THE WALKWAYS, UM, ON THE PLAN. IT'S, IT'S NOTED THAT WE ARE DOING A HARDY, UH, SIDING. UM, WE'VE, UM, UH, ARRANGED THE SETBACK TO, TO MATCH, UM, WHAT WAS ON THERE. UM, GOING BACK TO THE SETBACK IS WHAT I FOUND. THERE WAS ONE HOUSE ON THE CORNER OF ANCY, I BELIEVE WAS ABOUT 26 FEET, UM, WHERE WE'RE AT 30, BUT IT WAS 26 FROM THE CURB. SO THAT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT ONE THAT WE HAVE TO BRING BACK A LITTLE BIT, WHICH I'M COOL. I'M COOL WITH DOING THAT BECAUSE IT'D GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKYARD. UM, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I MEAN, I JUST, UM, WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I COULD, UH, ANSWER FOR Y'ALL. UM, AS FAR AS, OH, LET ME, I DIDN'T ADDRESS THE ATION ON THE, ON THE WINDOWS. WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS TRY TO ELIMINATE AS MANY WINDOWS AS WE COULD, UM, ON THE EAST END, THE WEST, AND I WASN'T SURE IF WE EVEN GOT CLOSE TO THAT OR IF WE WERE, EVEN, IF THAT WAS EVEN POSSIBLE. SO MAYBE I CAN, UM, ADDRESS ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. ALRIGHT, BEFORE WE GET TO COMMISSIONERS, UH, WE DO HAVE SOME, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS. YES, WE DO. UM, THE FIRST COMES FROM PATTY ZIONS, PRESIDENT OF THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY, 1 0 7, KING WILLIAM CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO CONCURS WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DENIAL OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, PROPOSED SCALE OF THE REAR ROOF FORM, THE PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION PATTERN AND THE PROPOSED PORCH DETAILING ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE, WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, AND THEN ALSO SCOTT ALBERT ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, WE SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. OVERALL, THE PROJECT SEEMS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES, BUT WITHOUT BASIC INFORMATION AND DIMENSIONS, IT'S DIFFICULT TO CONFIRM. FOR EXAMPLE, DIMENSIONS DESCRIBING THE WALL PLATE AND FOUNDATION HEIGHTS ARE MISSING. THERE'S [01:40:01] NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW THE SETBACKS AND ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENTS RELATE TO THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES WITHOUT CONTEXT INFORMATION. ALSO, THERE'S NO WAY OF KNOWING IF THE WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS ARE RELATIVE OR PROPORTIONAL TO THOSE FOUND ON THE BLOCK. THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT BASIC DIMENSION AND NOTATED DRAWINGS ALONG WITH SURROUNDING STRUCTURES. INFORMATION SUBMITTED WILL ANSWER, UM, IN ADDITION TO THE NON-CONFORMING WINDOW SIZES, SHAPES, AND DETAILS, THE TALL WALL SLASH FRONT GABLE HYBRID NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. AND JUST A REMINDER FOR COMMISSIONERS, UM, PLEASE TRY TO KEEP YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS DOWN TO FIVE MINUTES, UH, SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THE AGENDA MOVING. THANK YOU. . THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I JUST, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. I DON'T, I DON'T THINK, BUT FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT MAYBE THE APPLICANT WANTS TO RESPOND, UM, FOR A, FOR A, FOR A FINAL APPROVAL, UH, SHOWING THE SETBACKS OF THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES AND YOUR SETBACK KIND OF PRECISELY IN A DRAWING, ESSENTIALLY ENUMERATING THAT IN A DIMENSION TO ME, IS A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE, UH, OKAY. DOCUMENTS THAT WE NEED TO, UH, THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER HERE. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT, UH, WITH ALL OF STAFF STIPULATIONS, I THINK SOME OF THE FENESTRATION NEEDS TO BE, UH, FURTHER ADDRESSED. WHAT I'M COMFORTABLE DOING HERE TODAY IS, UM, SUPPORTING A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AND THEN A FINAL APPROVAL WHEN THE, WHEN THE DOCUMENTS THAT INCLUDE DIMENSIONS THAT SHOW HOW THESE, UM, THESE REMAINING STIPULATIONS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. I WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT IT. I FIND THE PROJECT AS GENERALLY CONFORMING WITH THE GUIDELINES, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY OVERARCHING CONCERNS. I JUST THINK THE BEST THING WE CAN DO TODAY IS, UH, A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WITHOUT SOME OF THAT INFORMATION IN THE DOCUMENTS. C COMMISSIONER FISH. THAT'S A MOTION. I'LL SECOND IT. I, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I MOVE FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL. SECONDED, EXCUSE ME. WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. UH, COMMISSIONER, AS YOU ACCEPT THAT. EXACTLY, EXACTLY. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. ALL IN FAVOR? SAY UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY, NAYYY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. OKAY. [23. 20-5942 Address/Description: 7914 KENNEDY HILL HDRC Case No.: 2020-342 Historic District Name: Brooks School of Aerospace Medicine Request: Removal of historic designation City Council Dist.: 3] IS ITEM 23, UM, EVERYONE PLEASE MUTE YOURSELVES. UM, LET'S UNMUTE JESS TO PRESENT THE CASE. JESS, ARE YOU THERE? I AM. ITEM NUMBER 23, SORRY, COREY. ITEM 23 ON THE AGENDA, H D R C, CASE NUMBER 2020 DASH 3 42 79 14 KENNEDY HILL. THE APPLICANT SEEKS A RECOMMENDATION FROM HISTORIC AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION TO REMOVE DESIGNATION FROM THE PROPERTY AT 79 14. KENNEDY HILL STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO REMOVE DESIGNATION FROM 79 14 KENNEDY HILL, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE NEW BOUNDARY FOR THE BROOKS SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE MEDICINE HISTORIC DISTRICT FOLLOWS BOUNDARY D AS PROPOSED BY STAFF AND INCLUDED IN THE EXHIBIT TITLED, REFERENCE FOR BOUNDARIES OF SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE MEDICINE, HISTORIC DISTRICT BASED ON FINDING B DOT THREE. AND I HAVE, UH, LEO GOMEZ FROM BROOKS ON THE LINE. MR. GOMEZ HAS PREPARED A PRESENTATION. MR. GOMEZ, ARE YOU THERE? I AM HERE. THANK YOU, JESSICA. YOU ARE WELCOME, MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS AND DIRECTOR SHANNON MILLER. MY NAME IS LEO GOMEZ, I'M THE PRESIDENT AND C E O OF BROOKS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR REDEVELOPING THE FORMER AIR FORCE BASE IN SOUTHEAST SAN ANTONIO. I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS REQUEST HERE, UH, BEFORE YOU TODAY, BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT BEFORE I MOVE ON WITH THE PRESENTATION, THAT I UNDERSTAND WHY THE REQUEST HAS TO BE WORDED AS IT IS. HOWEVER, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I'M NOT ASKING FOR A D DESIGNATION. I'M ASKING THAT WE HONOR THE BOUNDARIES THAT WERE ESTABLISHED IN 2003 AND REAFFIRMED IN 2013. AND I'LL EXPLAIN THAT. WE CAN NOW MOVE ON, LAUREN, INTO SLIDE NUMBER TWO, PLEASE, MR. GOMEZ, THERE'S GONNA BE A DELAY, BUT WE HAVE PROCEEDED TO THE NEXT SLIDE IF YOU WANNA CONTINUE. OKAY. IF YOU, IF YOU, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THESE TWO EXHIBITS, I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONCENTRATE FOR A MOMENT ON THE ONE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, THE BLACK AND WHITE ONE. UH, DISREGARD THE RED LINE FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE. THESE ARE THE BOUNDARIES IN THE DOTTED BACK, UH, IN THE BLACK DOTTED LINE THAT WERE AGREED TO IN 2003, WHEN THE BOUNDARIES WERE EX APPROVED BY THE, BOTH THE HISTORIC DESIGN AND REVIEW COMMISSION, AS WELL AS BROOKS [01:45:01] DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THEN THOSE BOUNDARIES WERE REAFFIRMED WHEN THE MASTER PLAN AND GUIDELINES FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WERE ADOPTED IN 2013. THOSE BOUNDARIES WERE PUBLISHED IN THAT REPORT AND TO THIS DAY, ARE PRESENTED IN AN EXHIBIT ON THE WEBSITE FOR THIS REPORT. THE, THE LINE THAT YOU SEE IN THE RED HAS AN, THAT IS THE, A PARCEL OF FIVE ACRES THAT WE HAVE SLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT IS BEING IMPACTED BY THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE HERE TODAY. AND SO IF YOU'LL GO TO PAGE THREE, THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE REASON WE HAVE, UH, A CONCERN AND HAVE BEEN VISITING WITH O H P STAFF. WE DISCOVERED THAT THE, THE BOUNDARIES WERE ACTUALLY RECORDED DIFFERENTLY THAN WE AGREED TO IN 2003 AND REAFFIRMED IN 2013. THOSE BOUNDARIES THAT ARE RECORDED ARE BA, ARE ACTUALLY IN THE ORANGE HERE. AND SO THAT BOUNDARY GOES WELL TO THE EAST, TO THE RIGHT, IF YOU WILL, OF THE ROAD. WHEN THE ROAD WAS ESTABLISHED AT THE, AS THE BOUNDARY WHEN WE AGREED UPON IT ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO, WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING AND RECOMMENDING IS CHANGING OR AMENDING THAT ORANGE LINE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER TO THE RED LINE, WHICH WOULD MAINTAIN A 30 FOOT SETBACK TO THE RIGHT OF THE ROAD. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT OFFER BY STAFF, BUT THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE AGREED TO ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO AND REAFFIRMED IN 2013. IF YOU LOOK AT SLIDE NUMBER FOUR, THAT IS THE SLIDE, AND THOSE ARE THE BOUNDARIES THAT WE WOULD REQUEST BE APPROVED, REAFFIRMED, WHATEVER THE APPROPRIATE, UH, TERM WOULD BE FOR IT. BUT IT KEEPS THE BOUNDARY ALONG THE ROAD WHILE RESPECTING THE TWO HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT WERE ACROSS THE STREET. ONE OF THEM IS BUILDING 180 6, AND I'LL EXPLAIN THAT ONE HERE IN A BIT. THE OTHER ONE WAS 180 5, WHICH IS NO LONGER THERE WAS DEMOLISHED, ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES, IN ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KENNEDY APARTMENTS, WHICH NOW EXIST PARTIALLY ON THAT PROPERTY. SO WE GO TO PAGE NUMBER FIVE. I AM ASKING YOU COMMISSIONERS AND O H P STAFF TO RECOGNIZE THAT BROOKS AND ITS ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE HAS CONTINUED TO CHAMPION HISTORIC PRESERVATION EVEN OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES. UH, FIRST, FIRST PROOF OF THAT ON PAGE FIVE IS THE BOTTOM LEFT, AND THAT'S HANGAR NINE, THE OLDEST STANDING HANGAR IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY, A HUNDRED PLUS YEARS OLD BROOKS INVESTED $2.6 MILLION IN IT, AND WE'RE PROUD OF IT. WE'RE PROUD OF HAVING THAT STILL STANDING, NOT ONLY STANDING IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT IMPROVED TO THE STATUS THAT HAS BEEN IMPROVED. AND IN FACT, WE WON THE BEST PRESERVATION PROJECT FROM O H P IN 2017 FOR HAVING DONE THAT. AND THE WAY WE DID IT, THE PICTURE RIGHT ABOVE IT IS THE CLUBHOUSE AT THE LANDINGS APARTMENTS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ROOF STRUCTURE OF THE CLUBHOUSE, IT MIMICS THE ROOF STRUCTURE OF HANGER NINE. WE WERE INSISTENT, OUR ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT FIRST MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIFAMILY ON THE BROOKS CAMPUS HAD HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. ON THE RIGHT, YOU SEE PICTURES OF THE INSIDE OF THE LA A, A PICTURE OF THE INSIDE OF THE LOBBY OF THE KENNEDY APARTMENTS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. IF YOU WALK INTO THAT LOBBY, YOU SEE A MUSEUM OF THAT HISTORICAL DAY THAT PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS AT THIS DISTRICT. AND IN LARGE PART IS THE REASON THIS HISTORIC DISTRICT IS, UH, SET APART AS SUCH. IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU DON'T SEE PICTURES HERE, BUT I INVITE YOU TO LOOK AT THE, UH, AMENITIES AT THE EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL, AND A LOT OF THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF THE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN OF THE HOTEL, THE ART THAT WE HAVE IN THE HOTEL. TAKE A LOOK AT MISSION CHARLES'S BAPTIST HOSPITAL. ITS DESIGN AND ITS RESPECT FOR HISTORY. ALL THOSE ARE, BUT A FEW OF THE EXAMPLES THAT WILL CONTINUE AS WE AT BROOKS AND THE ARCHITECTURAL PROPOSAL CONTINUE TO CHAMPION HISTORIC PRESERVATION AT BROOKS, EVEN OUTSIDE THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES. THE NEXT SLIDE, I'LL BE ABLE TO QUICKLY EXPLAIN THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT WOULD REMAIN WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES ACROSS THE STREET. THE FIRST ONE, FIRST OF ALL, IS BUILDING 180 5. THAT BUILDING IS THE ONE THAT WAS DEMOLISHED TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE KENNEDY APARTMENTS. BUILDING 180 6 IS STILL THERE, AND WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THAT BE TAKEN OUT OF THE BOUNDARIES. WE RESPECT THAT THAT [01:50:01] WAS THERE TO BEGIN WITH AND SHOULD BE, UH, STILL WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. BUT I DO WANNA POINT OUT THAT THE GUIDELINES THEMSELVES POINT DESCRIBE IT AS AN INSIGNIFICANT FACADE, AND SO PLEASE KNOW THAT ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR BUILDING. HAVING SAID THAT, WE AGREE WITH STAFF TO KEEP IT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES. THEY ACTUALLY, THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE AGREED TO IN 2003, AND AGAIN, WAS REAFFIRMED IN 2013. THE NEXT SLIDE WILL BEGIN TO TAKE US TO WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE TODAY. THIS IS A COPY OF THE ZONING CASE IN 2003. I THINK YOU HAVE IT HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW AS WELL, BUT I DON'T SEE IF IT'S CAUGHT UP HERE. YES, WE HAVE IT, BUT THE WORDING HERE DESCRIBES, THE WORDING HERE DESCRIBES THE BOUNDARIES THAT TAKE IT BACK TO THE STREET WITH NO 30 FOOT SETBACK. AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SETBACK NORTH OF THE TWO HISTORIC BUILDINGS. UNFORTUNATELY, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU SEE THE WORDING OF WHAT SHOULD BE THE BOUNDARIES IN THE ORDINANCE SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER, AND I'M NOT HERE TO POINT FINGERS AT, I MEAN, WHO KNOWS HOW THIS HAPPENED, BUT THAT WORDING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE WORDING IN THE ZONING CASE. IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL AND NO ONE ON COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO CHANGE THE WORDING. SO WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE WHERE WE AT BROOKS HAVE BEEN WORKING BY A SET OF BOUNDARIES ESTABLISHED IN 2003, REAFFIRMED IN 2013, AND NOW HAVE DISCOVERED THAT WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF BOUNDARIES WE NEED TO ABIDE BY. SO MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS, I'M HERE SIMPLY REQUESTING THAT WE HONOR THE BOUNDARIES THAT WERE ESTABLISHED. THEY WERE ESTABLISHED FOR A REASON. THEY WERE ESTABLISHED BY TWO PARTIES THAT AGREED TO IT. SOMEHOW THERE WAS A MISTAKE WHEN IT CAME OUT OF COUNSEL IN, IN THE RECORDING OF THE BOUNDARIES. EVEN THEN, I AM WILLING TO WORK WITH WHAT STAFF HAS PROPOSED OTHER THAN THE 30 FOOT SETBACK, UH, ALONG THE ROAD DOWN TO SYDNEY BROOKS. THEN MR. CHAIRMAN CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'D BE GLAD TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OF THERE ARE ANY THANK YOU. WE HAVE, UH, SOME COMMENTS. CORY? YES, SIR. UM, FROM PATTY ZIONS, PRESIDENT OF THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY 1 0 17, WILLIAM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO AGREES WITH THE STAFF FINDINGS AND STIPULATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST REMOVE DESIGNATION FROM 79 14 COMMUNITY HILL. OKAY, JUST THIS IS, UH, CHAIRMAN FETZER AGAIN, JUST TO MAKE SURE I HEARD RIGHT THAT THE SMALL BUILDING ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS PLANNED TO REMAIN, CORRECT? YES, SIR. THAT IS CORRECT. UM, JUST FOR ADDITIONAL CLARITY, UM, YOU SEE TWO IMAGES ON THE SCREEN. NOW, THE TOP IMAGE THAT GOLD LINE REPRESENTS, UM, THE CURRENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ACCORDING TO THE COUNCIL ORDINANCE. AND AS MR. GOMEZ WAS EXPLAINING, THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL ZONING CASE FOR THAT ITEM AND WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE COUNCIL ACTION. BUT WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT MAP IS CORRECTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE. UM, SO WHAT IS PROPOSED, YOU CAN SEE IS BELOW. UM, AND SO THAT IS THE CHANGE THAT IS ON TODAY'S AGENDA MAP IS RECOMMENDING THE RED LINE. CORRECT. WE HAVE RECOMMENDED A SMALLER REDUCTION THAT INCLUDES A 30 FOOT BUFFER ALONG THE STREET EDGE. UM, AND THAT IS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SOME DESIGN CONTROL OVER WHAT IMPACTS THE STREETSCAPE THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN FETZER, THIS IS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. UH, BROOKS IS IN DISTRICT THREE, COMMISSIONER FOR DISTRICT THREE. I'D LIKE TO COMMENT I, I'M, I'M COM COMPELLED TO, TO, UM, TO, UH, CONSIDER, UH, THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BROUGHT BEFORE US BY THIS APPLICANT. UH, UH, I THINK TOO OFTEN THERE ARE MISTAKES THAT ARE MADE AND THAT THERE'S, THERE'S REALLY NO WAY TO FOLLOW UP ON THOSE MISTAKES. AND WHILE THOSE MISTAKES MAY SOMETIMES PRESENT SOME INCONVENIENCE ON THE PART OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, UH, NOTHING CAN BE FURTHER FROM WHAT IS, WHAT IS JUST, THAN WHAT AN APPLICANT PRESENTS SUCH COMPELLING, UM, DOCUMENTATION THAT TO, TO, TO THE LARGEST EXTENT, I THINK TAKES, UH, SO MUCH OUT OF OUR HANDS. AND, AND IT'S JUST DIFFICULT TO, TO RELEASE SOMETHING BECAUSE I MEAN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A, THERE'S A CONCERN TO HAVE CONTROL, I THINK THE WAY THAT [01:55:01] COURTNEY SAID IT RIGHT NOW AND KIND OF, UH, EXPRESSES IT THE MOST HONESTLY. AND I APPRECIATE THAT, THAT THAT ANSWER THAT SPEAKS TO, UH, UM, MAINTAINING SOME CONTROL. HOWEVER, WE CAN SEE THAT, THAT THE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO US IS THE ACTUAL SHEET THAT HAS THE ON IT. AND, UH, OF COURSE, THE ORDINANCE IS REGISTERED AFTER IT'S RECORDED, AFTERWARDS WORDS, AND, UM, THE, I THINK, BUT I, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE OVERARCHING, UM, REASONING FOR GIVING THE APPLICANT SUCH WEIGHT IS THAT THE STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE THAT THEY HAVE PURSUED IS EVIDENT IN, IN WHAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE IN, IN, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD BELIEVE THAT MANY WOULD BELIEVE WOULD IMPOSSIBLE. WE'VE SEEN THE STRUGGLES THAT KELLY U S A, WHICH, WHICH I THINK ARE MAKING STRIDES TODAY, UM, BUT, BUT WITH THE LATE START THAT BROOKS HAD CONSIDERING THE TIMELINES, UM, THAT THEY, THAT THEY DO REMAIN TRUE TO THE INTEGRITY OF BUILDING, UH, UH, UH, A NEW SOUTH SIDE AMENITY WHILE AT THE SAME TIME RESPECTING, UH, HISTORIC, UH, ITS HISTORIC ATTRIBUTES. SO I, I, WHILE I, WHILE I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS TO DISCUSS, I THINK THIS, THIS EVIDENCE TAKES A LOT OF THAT DISCUSSION OUT OF OUR HANDS AND IT, AND IT DOES ASK US TO RESPECT THE BOUNDARY THAT, UM, IS BEING DESCRIBED BY THIS CASE NUMBER AS Z 2003 OR, OR Z 2 0 3 0 2 8, UH, AS THE ORIGINAL CASE WITH THE VOTES. THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS COMMISSIONER YOLA. UM, TO ECHO COMMISSIONER S'S POINT, UM, REGARDING, I GUESS, POINT OF CLERICAL CONCERNS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST. THIS ISN'T, THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, BE ALL. THAT BEING SAID TOO, THE, THE BASIC INTENT AND, AND ALSO JUST ECHOING HIS COMMENTS REGARDING WHAT YOU DO SEE WITH RESPECT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION THAT IS HAPPENING. UH, I THINK IT'S, IT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT WE DO HERE. I THINK IT'S IN LINE WITH BROADER COMMUNITY PLANS. UM, SO I'M, I'M ALL IN FAVOR FOR THE RE-DESIGNATION OF THAT LITTLE PLOT THERE, SO I, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO THAT, TO THAT EFFECT AS WELL. I'LL SECOND IT. I'LL, SO FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU'RE MOVING FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED, UH, BOUNDARIES. YES, SIR. ON THREE MORE. THAT IS WHAT I'M SECONDING. YEAH. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YEAH, COMMISSIONER, UH, CARPENTER HERE, I, I, I DO HAVE A DIS, UH, DISCUSSION POINT THAT I WANT TO, TO CONSIDER. UH, IS, I THINK AS, AS BEEN SAID, IT'S COMPELLING DOCUMENTATION THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED HERE. THERE MAY BEEN CLERICAL ERROR, BUT FROM A, UM, FROM A, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT PLANNING STANDPOINT, UH, IT'S ONE OF MY PET PEEVES IN THE DISTRICT, BOUNDARIES STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, UM, OR AT A, AT A , AT, AT A CURB EDGE, UH, BECAUSE IT THEN LEAVES OPEN WITHOUT SOMETHING, UM, IN INAPPROPRIATE, UH, IN COMPATIBLE TO BE, UH, IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE BACK ACTIVITY TO THE PERIPHERY OF THE, THE DISTRICT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO CREATE. SO, I, I UNDERSTAND AND CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON, ON THIS. IT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE, UM, COMPROMISE TO NEED TO MAINTAIN A 33 FOOT BUFFER. UH, AND I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS THAT ONEROUS, UM, A, UM, STIPULATION HERE TO HAVE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF DESIGN OVER WHAT APPEARS TO BE KIND OF A, A PORTAL ENTRY TO, UM, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE, THE SITE HERE. SO, UH, I, I SUPPORT STAFF FOLLOW YOUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE'LL SEE HOW THE, UH, HOW THE MOTION GOES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S, UH, PROPOSED BOUNDARY. UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MAY HAVE A SPLIT VOTE. UH, I'M GONNA CALL FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE. OKAY. UH, FISH AYE. GIBBS AYE. [02:00:01] VELASQUEZ AYE. AREOLA AYE. CARPENTER NAY. AYE. UH, FETZER NAY, UNE AYE. AT SEVEN TO TWO, OR, I'M SORRY, SIX TO TWO. MOTION CARRIES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. UM, [24. 20-5886 Address/Description: 214 BARRERA HDRC Case No.: 2020-409 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: James Mullin/MULLIN JAMES M & MARY L Request: Roof replacement with ridge cap City Council Dist.: 1] THANK YOU. UP NEXT IS ITEM 24. UM, LET'S UNMUTE. WE, I BELIEVE HE'S READY. WE ARE YOU THERE? AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 24, CASE NUMBER 20 24 0 9 AT TWO 14 RERA, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE THE SHINGLE ROOF WITH A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF. THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THE NEW STANDING SEA METAL ROOF TO FEATURE VENTED RIDGE CAPS INSTEAD OF A CRIMPED RIDGE OR A STANDING SEAM RIDGE SLEEVE, AS WELL AS STRIATED PANELS INSTEAD OF SMOOTH PANELS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ROOF REPLACEMENT WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE PROPOSED ROOF FEATURE, SMOOTH PANELS THAT ARE 18 TO 21 INCHES WIDE, A CRIMPED OR DOUBLE MUNCH RIDGE SEAM, A STANDARD GASOLINE FINISH, AND SEAMS THAT ARE ONE TO TWO INCHES IN HEIGHT. I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT, JAMES MULLEN ON THE LINE, UH, COMMISSIONERS FOR CONTEXT. THIS APPLICATION IS GENERALLY ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING COMMISSION REVIEW TO USE A VENTED RIDGE CAP AS WELL AS STRIATED PANELS, WHICH, UH, WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH OUR STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. JAMES, IF YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF. YES, THIS IS, UH, JA, UH, JIM MULLEN, UM, AND I'M, UH, PLEASED, UH, TO BE BEFORE THE COMMISSION. JAMES. I DO HAVE ALL OF THE PHOTOS AND FILES THAT YOU SUBMITTED WITH YOUR APPLICATION. IF YOU'D LIKE TO WALK US THROUGH ANY OF THEM, WE CAN PULL 'EM UP ON THE SCREEN. KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE IS A DELAY IF YOU'RE WATCHING THE LIVE STREAM. OKAY. UM, WELL, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POSE MY ARGUMENTS. UM, I, I KNOW WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE. UH, WE WERE REQUESTING THAT A RIDGE VENT THAT, THAT YOU APPROVE OF VARIANCE FOR RIDGE VENTS. BUT IF YOU WOULD TURN TO, UH, PAGE NUMBER 15, THAT'S THE HOUSE, THAT'S OUR HOUSE TWO 14 RERA, AND THAT IS A LATER EXHIBIT. UM, THAT'S ONE OF THE PANELS WITH STRIATIONS. UH, THAT'S IT. UH, YES, IT, I'D LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS, UH, PAGE. UH, IT, UH, REVIEWS THE BENEFITS OF RIDGE FENCE. UM, HOPEFULLY, UH, UH, I CAN BARELY READ IT FROM MY END, BUT HOPEFULLY YOU CAN READ IT ON YOURS. UH, THE BENEFITS, I'M, I'M GONNA LOOK AT NUMBER THREE. UH, IT SAYS, THE MAJORITY OF ROOFING EXPERTS AGREE THAT RIDGE FENCE ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND COST EFFECTIVE ROOF VENTS AVAILABLE. UM, HIGHER UP ON THAT PAGE. IT ALSO, UH, UH, COMMENTS ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF, OF A RIDGE VENT IS PROVIDING A, A RELEASE OF, OF HEAT IN THE SUMMER AND MOISTURE IN THE WINTER. UM, IF YOU GO TO THE PAGE BEFORE THAT, PAGE 14, UM, IF YOU WOULD TURN TO THE PAGE JUST BEFORE THAT. THE PREVIOUS PAGE, YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S THE BENEFITS OF RIDGE FENCE. UM, AND, UM, I, I DON'T NEED TO READ 'EM IF YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE THEM. UM, BASICALLY IT'S SAYING THAT THE, UH, WHAT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE WHAT I ALREADY SAID, THAT ROOFING MAJORITY OF ROOF EXTRAS AGREE THAT IT'S THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND COST EFFECTIVE, UH, OF VENTING AVAILABLE. I KNOW THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO VENT THAT. ON THIS PAGE HERE, OUR BLOCK WHERE OUR HOME RESIDES, THERE ARE TOTAL OF 15 STRUCTURES. UH, TWO OF THOSE STRUCTURES WERE, WERE BUILT, UH, 93 OR LATER. THAT 93 WAS A [02:05:01] HOME THAT CAUGHT FIRE AND WAS REBUILT. AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER THAT WAS BUILT ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO. SO THERE'S 13 OLDER HOMES ON OUR BLOCK, AND THIS IS BOTH SIDES OF THE BLOCK. OF THOSE 13 HOMES, THESE OLDER HOMES, FIVE OF THEM HAVE RIDGE VENTS AND TWO MIDDLE ROOFS WITHOUT RIDGE VENTS AND, AND SIX HAVE SHINGLE ROOFS. NOW, I RECOGNIZE WHAT STAFF HAS TOLD ME IS THAT THOSE WITH RIDGE VENTS, THE OLDER HOMES, THOSE WERE MOST LIKELY, UH, INSTALLED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER, 2017. SO, UH, THOSE DID NOT, DID NOT CATCH THE, THE RULES THAT, THAT WERE PROBABLY, UH, ENFORCED AFTER SEPTEMBER 17. UM, IF YOU WOULD, IF YOU WOULD GO TO THE VERY LAST EXHIBIT, UM, PAGE 19, UH, THE VERY, VERY, VERY LAST EXHIBIT. UH, THOSE ARE SOME HOMES. THOSE ARE PICTURES OF SOME HOMES IN OUR BLOCK, UH, THAT, THAT HAVE RIDGE VENT ROOFS. AND, AND THESE ARE ALL OLDER HOMES I HAVE ON THEIR, UH, THE, THE ADDRESS AND THE YEAR THEY WERE BUILT. AGAIN, I RECOGNIZE THAT MOST LIKELY THEY WERE INSTALLED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER, 2017. THERE, THERE IS A HOME, NOT IN OUR BLOCK, BUT AT THE END OF RERA. AND IF YOU SCOOT UP ON THIS PAGE A LITTLE BIT, JUST ON THE SAME PAGE. OKAY, WE'VE NOW SWITCHED TO THE LAST, UH, LAST EXHIBIT. THIS COMES OUT OF THE APPLICATION THAT CAME IN EARLY THIS YEAR, UH, FOR THE STRUCTURE IN THE PARK THAT'S RIGHT OUTSIDE OF FROST BANK TOWERS. UH, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS. THIS CAME BEFORE YOUR BOARD, UH, EARLY PART OF THE YEAR. AND IT WAS FOR A STRUCTURE THAT, UH, IS BEING BUILT ON THE PART THAT WESTERN URBAN HAS ACQUIRED. UH, WESTERN URBAN IS BUILDING THIS STRUCTURE, AND IT IS DESIGNED, IT'S GONNA BE A RESTAURANT, UH, THAT'S ALREADY COME OUT IN THE NEWS ARTICLE. UH, THIS PAGE INDICATES, THIS COMES FROM THEIR APPLICATION THAT THIS BUILDING WAS TO BE BUILT TO REPLICATE A TURN OF THE CENTURY BUILDING. UH, AND IT, AND THE OTHER HIGHLIGHT, IT WAS GONNA HAVE A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF. THIS BUILDING, AND THERE'S A PICTURE OF IT IN THE PAGE PRIOR TO THIS ONE, UH, ON ONE OF MY EXHIBITS IS, IS THE PAGE PRIOR TO THIS PAGE. HERE IT SHOWS THE, THE BUILDING, UH, MY, MY POSITION HERE IS IF THIS BUILDING WAS, UH, TO BE TURN OF THE CENTURY, UH, AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S THE PICTURE OF IT, UH, ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE RICH FENCE. IF THIS BUILDING WAS SUPPOSED TO REPLICATE THE TURN OF THE CENTURY BUILDING THAT IT WAS ALLOWED A RICH VENT. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION ALLOWS RICH FENCES, SO APPARENTLY HOMES BEFORE 2017 THAT ARE OLDER, UH, IF THEY HAD A RICH VENT THAT THAT THAT PASSED BY, UH, NEW CONSTRUCTION ALSO. BUT IN THE, THE ARGUMENT THAT RICH VENTS ARE MUCH MORE EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE, UM, I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REQUEST THAT IN REPLACING THE SHINGLE ROOF ON OUR HOUSE AT TWO 14 RERA THAT THE, WITH THE STANDING SCENE METAL ROOF, UH, I'M NOT ASKING FOR STRIATIONS ANYMORE. SO I'M SIMPLY, UH, I'LL AGREE WITH THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT I, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE INSTALLED. SO, SO, UH, THAT'S MY POSITION. I'LL, I'LL REST. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF A QUESTION. VELAZQUEZ, UH, UH, CO UH, LAUREN, WHO, WHO I SPEAK TO? LAUREN OR COREY, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ON MUTE, COREY, WE CAN BOTH HEAR YOU. GO AHEAD. OKAY. WELL, I, I'M, I'M WONDERING WITH, WITH THE NUMBERS THAT THE, UH, THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THAT HE DID A, UM, YOU SAY, CALL IT A ROOFTOP SURVEY, THE MAJORITY OF, OF, UH, STANDING SEA ROOFS IN, IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ACTUALLY HAVE RIDGE VETS. UM, WH WHY, WHY, UM, WOULD THAT NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION? AGAIN, WE RE WE, LIKE ANY CASE, WE REVIEW THEM ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. AND SO WE'VE HAD THESE STANDARDS IN PLACE ACTUALLY REALLY BEFORE THE GUIDELINES, BUT WE'VE REALLY MADE THEM CLEAR SINCE THE GUIDELINES. UM, AND WE'VE REALLY UP ENFORCEMENT ON THAT SPECIFICATION SINCE 2017. UM, SO I [02:10:01] DON'T KNOW WHEN ALL THE ROUTES WERE INSTALLED, UM, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T LOOK AT ONE HISTORIC PROPERTY AS HAVING THAT DETAIL INSTALLED AS THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW. UM, WE HAVE GUIDELINES IN PLACE, SO OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS ALWAYS GONNA BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES, NOT NECESSARILY PRECEDENT ON THE STREET. LET, LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION IN THERE. UM, WHEN A RIDGE VENT IS, UH, ALLOWED, IS THERE, UH, GUIDELINES FOR THE HEIGHT OF THAT RIDGE VAN, UH, FOR THE PROFILE THAT IT SITS? BECAUSE, 'CAUSE THERE'S DIFFERENT RIDGE VENTS, RIGHT? UH, IS, IS, IS THERE A, A LOW PROFILE RIDGE VENT THAT YOU'VE SEEN? UH, I DON'T WANNA SAY THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, RIGHT? 'CAUSE THAT'S SUBJECT TO A VOTE. BUT IS THERE A LOW, A LOW, UH, RIDGE VENT THAT IN YOUR OPINION IS, IS IS LESS, UH, IT DETRACTS LESS FROM THE OVERALL AESTHETIC? UM, YOU KNOW, SOME ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS. I THINK THE ISSUE IS IT BEING VENTED, IT IS REQUIRED TO BE RAISED OFF THE, THE TOP OF THAT, THAT SEAM HEIGHT. UM, SO THERE'S DIFFERENT CAPS AND DIFFERENT DETAILS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY, UM, LIKE A DOUBLE MINUS RIDGE SEAM LIKE WE NORMALLY RECOMMEND THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED. UM, BUT WE'VE BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE GUIDELINES RECOMMENDING AGAINST LIKE A RAISED VENT CAP. NOW, NOW THE, THE REASON, THE REASON THAT I ASK IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE HISTORIC, UM, METAL ROOFS, WHICH ARE REALLY, YOU KNOW, UH, AT, AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, VERY, VERY SPECIAL. THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED IN HOUSES THAT WERE NOT AS HERMETICALLY SEALED AS HOUSES TODAY. SO WHERE THE HOUSES ARE, ARE MUCH, MUCH TIGHTER. UH, IT, THEIR CONDITIONS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT AND IT, AND PERHAPS, UH, A RIDGE VENT, UH, TAKES, TAKES THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, RIGHT? BREATHING. RIGHT. UM, BUT I'M WONDERING IF, UM, IF A, UM, MOTION WAS MADE TO ALLOW A RIDGE VENT, WOULD THERE BE A WAY TO ENABLE STAFF TO ENSURE THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PROFILE? I MEAN, DO YOU ALL HAVE EXAMPLES? CAN YOU LEAD A A, AN APPLICANT IN A WAY TO ACHIEVE THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PROFILE? POTENTIALLY, BUT I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE HALF AN HALF AN INCH DETAIL DIFFERENCE. AND SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALREADY GONNA BE OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S NORMALLY RECOMMENDED. SO I, I THINK IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO THEN DECIDE, YOU KNOW, WHAT MINUSCULE AMOUNT IS APPROPRIATE COMPARED TO THE OTHER. UNDERSTOOD. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I KNOW, UH, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE HAVE, WE HAVE CHANGES IN ROOF OR REPLACEMENT AND METAL ROOF STIPULATIONS ARE KIND OF TAILORED PRECISELY BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SUCH TROUBLE WITH THIS IN THE PAST. AND THERE ARE, UH, INAPPROPRIATE RIDGE CAPS THAT YOU CAN PROBABLY FIND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CONTINUE TO BE ONGOING COMPLIANCE CASES. THOSE USUALLY COME BACK TO US WHEN THEY'RE INSTALLED. THE PROFILE OF ANY RIDGE CAP IS TO BE A MINIMUM, MINIMUM PROFILE IF IT'S NOT A DOUBLE RIDGE, WHICH SEEM LIKE IS IN THE RECOMMENDATION. I SUPPORT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND, UH, I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S, UH, TIME AND MAKING HIS CASE HERE BUT I, I WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I SECOND THAT. AND, AND JUST ALSO ADD THAT, UM, THE, THE DENIAL OF A, OF A ROOF RIDGE VENT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T VENT THAT, UH, ROOF CAVITY. THERE ARE OTHER STRATEGIES FOR VENTING THE CAV CAVITY. THOSE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. SO THIS IS THE REASON I SUPPORT STAFF'S FINDINGS ON THIS. AND SECOND, THE MOTION. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. UH, ALL IN FAVOR? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAYYY. NAY. WE HAVE ONE NAYYY, UH, COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ, UH, VELASQUEZ. AND SO THE MOTION PASSES. THANK [25. 20-6017 Address/Description: 1111 & 1115 N Palmetto HDRC Case No.: 2020-435 Historic District Name: Dignowity Hill Applicant: James Benfield/Benfield Real Estate Request: Construction of two, 2-story residential structures City Council Dist.: 2] YOU. UM, THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 25. EDWARDO. ARE YOU READY? AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 25 H D I'M SORRY. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 25. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 25 H D R C, CASE NUMBER 20 24, 35, 11 11, AND 1115 NORTH PALMETTO. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT TWO, TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE VACANT LOT TO BE IMMEDIATE NORTH OF ALDER STREET AND TO THE IMMEDIATE SOUTH OF AN UNNAMED ALLEY. WITHIN THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THE FOLLOWING. ONE. WE CONSTRUCT ONE, TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE VACANT LOT TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH OF [02:15:01] AL ALDER ALLEY INTO THE IMMEDIATE SOUTH OF AN UNNAMED ALLEY TO THE ADDRESS AS 1111 NORTH PALMETTO. AND TWO, TO CONSTRUCT ONE TWO STORE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON THE VACANT LIGHT TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH OF BOULDER ALLEY, AND TO THE IMMEDIATE SOUTH OF THE UNAIDED ALLEY TO BE ADDRESS AS 1115 NORTH PALMETTO. THE LOTS ARE CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED AS LIGHTS 22 AND 23 OF BLOCK THREE. NEW CITY BLOCK 1302 STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND A FINAL APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ITEMS PRIOR TO RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL TO BOTH REQUEST ITEMS, NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO, ONE, THAT THE APPLICANT INCORPORATES SEVERAL DESIGN STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, INCLUDING UTILI UTILIZING A HALF STORY OR AN ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN FRONT YARD SETBACK IS NOTED IN FINDINGS ONE B AND TWO B TWO. THE FOUNDATION HEIGHTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES WE UTILIZE IS NOTING NOTED IN FINDINGS ONE B AND TWO B THREE THAT ALL GAINED WINDOWS AND GROUP THAT ALL GAINED IN GROUPED WINDOWS BE SEPARATED BY A MILLION OF AT LEAST SIX INCHES IN WIDTH. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT WINDOWS SHOULD BE ADDED TO BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTHWEST SIDE, NEAR THE FRONT OF BOTH STRUCTURES, AND THAT NON-TRADITIONALLY SIZED WINDOW OPENING SHOULD BE ELIMINATED, SUCH AS SIX SQUARE WINDOWS IS NOTED IN FINDINGS ONE F AND TWO F FOUR, THAT THE APPLICANT INCREASED THE PORCH DEPTH TO AT LEAST FIVE FEET IN FINDINGS ONE G TWO G FIVE, THAT THE APPLICANT INSTALL WINDOWS THAT MEET STAFF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOWS. AS NOTED IN FINDINGS ONE J AND TWO J SIX, THAT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS BE SEPARATED IN WIDTH TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES AS NOTED IN FINDINGS ONE N AND TWO N SEVEN, THAT A DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AS NOTED IN FINDINGS ONE P AND TWO P AND SEVEN, THAT ALL MECHA, EXCUSE ME, EIGHT, THAT ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED FROM REVIEW FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS NOTED IN FINDINGS ONE Q AND TWO Q. UH, THERE ARE TWO CASE COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO A FOUNDATION INSPECTION AND A STANDING SCENE METAL ROOF INSPECTION. I HAVE THE APPLICANT, MR. JAMES BENFIELD ON THE LINE. HELLO, THIS IS JIM BENFIELD. UH, I'M THE OWNER AND BUILDER OF THE, THE, UH, PROJECT. UM, FOR THE MOST PART, EVERYTHING ON HERE I'M PRETTY MUCH FINE WITH. UM, I WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS FOR A HOUSE, LITERALLY ABOUT TWO HOUSES OVER AT, UH, 10 21 NORTH PALMETTO. AND BECAUSE I GOT THAT FULLY APPROVED, IT TOOK A WHILE, BUT I GOT IT APPROVED AND I TRIED TO STAY AS CLOSE TO THAT AS POSSIBLE, UM, SO THAT, UH, THERE WOULDN'T BE TOO MUCH, TOO MUCH TO HAVE TO CHANGE. AND SO, LIKE ON NUMBER ONE, UM, AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT GOES, THIS, THESE TWO HOUSES ARE ACTUALLY SHORTER THAN THAT HOUSE THAT I BUILT TWO HOUSES OVER. THERE'S A HOUSE LIKE KIND OF CATTY CORNER AT THE CORNER OF BURLESON AND PALMETTO THAT IS, UH, JUST ABOUT THE SAME HEIGHT. AND THE ONLY REASON WHY I, THERE'S, THERE'S A COUPLE REASONS WHY I HAVE THE HEIGHT THE WAY THAT THEY ARE. UH, AND THE MAIN REASON IS THAT WITH THE DECK IN THE BACK, THAT, THAT IF YOU SEE THEY'RE ON THE PLANS, UM, IT GIVES YOU A GREAT VIEW OF THE DOWNTOWN SKYLINE. SO, UM, IT'S THE SAME THING THAT WE DID. THE OTHER HOUSE THAT I DID AT 10 21, WE ACTUALLY, UH, DID A TERRACE AND IT WAS OVER SOME LIVING SPACE, AND I DECIDED I DIDN'T WANT TO MESS WITH DECKS. I JUST DID A THIRD STORY DECK. UM, THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GET TO IT IS FROM THE OUTSIDE, BUT IT DOES NOT GO ABOVE THE ROOF LINE. SO AGAIN, THE HEIGHT OF THESE HOUSES ARE BELOW THE HOUSE THAT I BUILT TWO HOUSES OVER THAT WAS APPROVED, UM, AND ABOUT THE SAME SIZE AS THE ONE THAT'S CATTYCORNER FROM WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. NOW, AS FAR AS THE WINDOWS GO, I DID TURN IN, UH, WINDOW SPECS OF THE EXACT WINDOWS THAT WERE APPROVED ON THE HOUSE. AGAIN, TWO HOUSES AWAY. UM, I, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH, UH, MULIAN. I, I THINK WE DID FOR THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION THAT I GOT FROM MR. HALL, UM, WE DID PUT IN THAT SIX INCH GAP. HOWEVER, WE DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, PUT, WE DIDN'T LABEL IT AS A MULIAN. SO I, I MEAN, WE CAN DO THAT, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. UM, AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE SIZE OF THE WINDOWS, UH, THAT I SEE IT IS IT'S ABOVE A WINDOW, EXCUSE ME, ABOVE A SINK AND, UH, ABOVE THE TOILET OR ABOVE TWO TOILETS. UM, I, PER MY CONVERSATION WITH MR. HALL AS WELL, HE JUST SAID, WELL, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE OPERA OPERABLE WINDOWS, KIND OF THE SAME TYPE OF WINDOW, JUST SMALLER. AND I'VE GOT NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. THAT'S FINE TOO. THE ONLY OTHER WINDOWS THAT, THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. THERE'S THREE SQUARE WINDOWS THERE, UM, FOR DESIGN PURPOSES, AND YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE 'EM, UM, FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. I'D LIKE TO KEEP THOSE IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS THE FOUNDATION HEIGHT, THAT'S FINE PER MY CONVERSATION. UM, WITH, UH, [02:20:01] MR. HALL, IT NEEDS TO BE BETWEEN 12 AND 16 INCHES, AND IT DOES FALL IN THAT. SO I'VE ALREADY DONE THE FOUNDATION PLANS. I CAN FORWARD THOSE TO MR. HALL. I KNOW THEY'RE GONNA CHANGE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE OF THE FRONT PORCH. NOW, I, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM EXTENDING THE FRONT PORCH OUT FROM, IT'S CURRENTLY AT FOUR FEET. I CAN EXTEND IT OUT TO FIVE FEET, THAT, THAT'S NO BIG DEAL. UH, FOR NUMBER FOUR, UM, STALL WINDOWS. OKAY, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, THAT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS BE SEPARATED. YES. AND THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM TOO, BECAUSE I, I TOLD HIM THAT I COULD DO THAT AS WELL. I DID ASK THAT IF I COULD JUST PUT SOME CRUSHED GRAINING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RIBBON DRIVEWAYS, UM, IF THAT WOULD BE OKAY. HE SAID THAT THAT SHOULD BE FINE. AND THEN I'M ALREADY WORKING ON THE DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN AND SHOULD HAVE THAT SUBMITTED BY TOMORROW OF ALL THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED. AND THEN NUMBER EIGHT IS FINE AS WELL. SO FOR THE MOST PART, I THINK, UH, THE ONLY THING THAT, THAT, I GUESS I'M GIVEN A LITTLE PUSHBACK IS THE HEIGHT, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT, IT'S SHORTER THAN THE HOUSE THAT I'VE BUILT A COUPLE HOUSES OVER. AND, UH, I WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THE DOWNTOWN SKYLINE, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. UM, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE, UM, I'M PRETTY MUCH ON BOARD WITH, ON THE WINDOWS. IF I COULD GET THOSE THREE WINDOWS AT THE MASTER BEDROOM, THAT WOULD BE GREAT TOO. OKAY, THANK YOU. I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE DO. UM, THE FIRST COMES FROM PATTI ZIONS, UH, PRESIDENT OF THE KING WILLIAMS, OR SORRY, OF THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY 1 0 7. KING WILLIAM, THE CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF SAN ANTONIO CONCURS WITH THE STAFF FINDINGS, THE RECOMMENDATION TO DENY APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AT ONE 11, SORRY, 1111 AND 1115 NORTH PALMETTO. THE OVERALL HEIGHTENED MASSING OF THE TWO STRUCTURES PRESENTED DOMINATING AND CUMULATIVE VISUAL EFFECT THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SCALE OF THE SURROUNDING HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THE NEXT COMES FROM SCOTT ALBERT, UM, ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL, UH, NEIGHBORS AND THE DIGNITY HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT 9 22 NORTH PINE, WHO SUPPORTS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS NOT TO APPROVE FOR CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL BASED ON THE MASSING AND HEIGHTS OF THE TWO STRUCTURES. ALDER STREET IS NOTED FOR ITS MODEST COTTAGES, AND WE AGREE WITH STAFF THAT SEVERAL DESIGN STRATEGIES SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN TO AMELIORATE THE MASSING, A HOUSE THAT FITS IN BETTER WITH THE HOUSES IN THE AREA. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A LETTER IN YOUR FOLDER AS WELL. THANK YOU. YEAH. ONE, ONE THING IF I, IF I MAY, UM, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY MR. HALL, AND I THINK IT'S IN HERE AS WELL, IS HE WAS TALKING ABOUT MAYBE TO, UM, TO HELP WITH THE HEIGHT, TO, TO MAYBE PUSH THE HOUSES BACK AN EXTRA FIVE FEET OR SO. THAT'S FINE. I'M WILLING TO DO THAT TOO. UM, THERE'S PLENTY OF, OF ROOM IN THE BACK, INCLUDING THE SETBACK. SO I JUST HAVE A DIFFICULTY, DIFFICULTY, UM, APPROVING LIKE BY YOU SAYING YOU COMPLY TO EVERYTHING. 'CAUSE THERE'S SOME ITEMS THAT I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF FEEL COMFORTABLE, UH, PROVING THIS AND THEN, UH, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTING THE UPDATED DRAWINGS AND LANDSCAPING PLAN AND EVERYTHING ELSE LATER, OR, I MEAN, BECAUSE I DO FEEL THE HEIGHT IS AN ISSUE TO AGREE WITH, UH, MR. HALL THAT PUT BACK. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE BACK, UM, OF ONE OF THE PROPERTIES. AND THEN WHAT'S THE HEIGHT OVERALL, UM, COMPARED TO PROPERTY? HOW DOES THAT, UM, HOW MUCH HIGHER UP, TALKING ABOUT, OR, I MEAN, YEAH, MAYBE THE ROOF LINE CAN BE LOWERED. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE ROOF HEIGHT IS, UM, ON THE WINDOWS. I'M SURE IT'S NOT A, I'M SURE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS, MOVE FORWARD WITH, WITH SO MUCH INFORMATION AND SO MANY STIPULATIONS. , WE'RE STILL HERE. UM, YEAH, I, I, I, UH, TEND TO AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT WERE JUST MADE BY COMMISSIONER BLUE. I THINK, UH, THERE'S, THERE'S STILL SOME WORK TO BE DONE, YOU KNOW, I'M GLAD THAT YOU DID, UH, TAKE THE KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, UH, THAT YOU TOOK FROM THE OTHER, UH, APPLICATION AND, AND TRY TO APPLY HERE. I I [02:25:01] THINK YOU'RE NOT THAT FAR AWAY, UM, FROM GETTING APPROVAL FROM YOU. I THINK THERE ARE, UH, SOME ISSUES, PARTICULARLY THAT LARGE ROOF, IT MERGES UP PRETTY HIGH. I THINK THE FRONTAGE OF THE HOUSE IS, IS WELL SCALED FOR A TWO STORY STRUCTURE THAT, THAT REAR, UM, THE PRIMARY ROOF, UH, SEEMS LIKE IT MEETS SOME SORT OF SCALING DOWN. SO IT'S NOT JUST AN ISSUE OF HEIGHT, IT'S AN ISSUE OF MASS AND, UH, THE SCALE RELATIVE TO ADJACENT STRUCTURES. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE, TAKE, TAKE THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PREVIOUS, UH, APPLICATION AND TRY TO APPLY IT DIRECTLY HERE, UH, BECAUSE EVERY CASE IS, IS UNIQUE. UM, SO I, I, I WOULD, I THINK THIS NEEDS A, A LITTLE BIT MORE FINDING BEFORE, UH, I COULD SUPPORT IT. SO WITH THAT, UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER, UH, DISCUSSION, I MOVE FOR, UH, THIS CASE TO BE REFERRED TO THE D R C, UM, AT SOME FUTURE DATE. AND THE APPLICANT, UH, INVESTIGATES SOME ALTERNATIVE, UH, MASSING, UH, SOLUTIONS, PARTICULARLY FOR THE, THE TALL, UH, PRIMARY MOVE OCTOBER. LOOK AT THAT, MR. MCG GIBBS. I SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SEND THIS TO D R C. UM, ALL IN FAVOR. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAYYY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. [26. 20-5894 Address/Description: 316 BRAHAN BLVD HDRC Case No.: 2020-410 Historic District Name: Government Hill Applicant: Ralph Estrada/Estradas Roofing Request: Roof replacement with ridge cap City Council Dist.: 2] OKAY, UM, LET'S UNMUTE. WE FOR ITEM 26 I, AGAIN, ITEM NUMBER 26, CASE NUMBER 20 24 10 AT 3 1 6 HAN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO INSTALL A VENTED RIDGE CAP ON THE STANDING SEA METAL ROOF. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS. A THREE C STAFF RECOMMENDS THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR METAL ROOF SHOULD BE ADHERED TO PER THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. SO COMMISSIONERS, UNLIKE THE ONE BEFORE THIS ONE, IS COMING TO US AS A VIOLATION CASE. THE PROPERTY RECEIVED ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS IN JUNE. STAFF CONDUCTED THE STANDARD MATERIAL INSPECTION IN AUGUST AND NOTIFIED THE APPLICANT AND CONTRACTOR AT THE TIME THAT THE RIDGE CAP THAT THEY INTENDED INSTALLING DID NOT MEET THE STANDARD SPECIFICATION. THE APPLICANT AND CONTRACTOR, UH, CONTINUED TO CONTINUE THE INSTALLATION, BUT IS NOW, UH, ASKING FOR THAT AMENDMENT HERE TODAY. UH, I HAVE, UH, RALPH AND GREG ON THE LINE. IF YOU GUYS WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF. WE DO HAVE ALL OF YOUR PHOTOS AND, UH, IN CASE FILES, JUST, UH, BE AWARE OF THE, THE SLIGHT DELAY ON THE STREAM. HELLO, THIS IS GREG. THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE FOR THE TIME AND FOR CONSIDERING OUR REQUEST. HELLO, THIS IS RALPH. I'M . UM, THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE HAVING HERE, UM, ON THE, THE, THE, THE RIDGE ALONG THE RIDGE, WE DID NOTICE WE HAD APPROXIMATELY THREE INCHES OF A, OF SAG, WHICH IS A SADDLE ON, ON THE RED LINE. UM, IT IS, IT IS FEASIBLE FOR US TO, TO RUN A CAP DUE TO THE FACT, IF WE WOULD PLACE A RIBBON ALONG THE RED LINE, WE WOULD HAVE APPROXIMATELY TWO TO THREE INCHES PLAY, MEANING FROM ONE SIDE OF THE RIDGE TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIDGE. THE STRUCTURE SENSE, BECAUSE IT IS IN A FLOATING FOUNDATION. UM, THE HOUSE IS APPROXIMATELY 75 YEARS OLD. OF COURSE, THIS IS GONNA HAPPEN ON THE OLDER, BIGGER HOMES. SO I THINK THIS WAS, UH, AN ISSUE OF, UH, HARDSHIP VERSUS, UH, AESTHETICS. UH, WE USUALLY GO WITH ABOUT A SIX INCH REDRIDGE CAP. WE HAD ONE FABRICATED THAT WAS A LOT SMALLER, A LOT NARROWER. UM, AND I BELIEVE WE, WE HAVE PICTURES OF THAT. UH, AND THAT'S, THAT'S OUR, THAT, THAT'S OUR ISSUE WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST IS BECAUSE Y Y'ALL WOULD NOT ACCEPT A, A VENT. SO WE, WE DID AWAY WITH THE RED VENT. THAT'S, THOSE ARE PICTURES FROM ANOTHER SITE. SO, UH, IF YOU COULD PLEASE DISREGARD THAT. UM, OUR, OUR, OUR MAIN, UH, ISSUE HERE IS WHY WE WENT WITH A CAP VERSUS A RIBBON. UH, THE RIBBONS FOR US ARE A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE. UH, THE RED CAPSULE IS A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE, UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MANUFACTURE THEM [02:30:01] ON SITE. UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW. BUT, UM, HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THIS RESOLVED. ANY QUESTIONS? UM, RIGHT ON YOUR END? NOTHING. I HAVE ONE. THIS IS CHAIRMAN FETZER. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE PANELS ARE NOT FLAT, THAT THEY HAVE, UH, SOME RIDGES IN THEM. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR. WE CALL THEM SHORTER RIDGES. YEAH. UM, BECAUSE OF THE SLOPE OF THE HOUSE, WHEN WE DO OUR PANELS, YOU'RE GOING TO, OF COURSE, YOU'RE GONNA SEE A BUBBLE WHEN, WHEN YOU SEE THE BUBBLE, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S CONCRETE. WHEN YOU PUT THE RIBBONS, IT ALLOWS THAT TO BE, UH, IT'S THE BUBBLE'S THERE, BUT IT'S NOT AS NOTICEABLE. IT ACTUALLY TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF THE, OF THE BUBBLE AWAY. SO WE WENT TWO, TWO LINES. UM, FOR US, IT'S, LIKE I SAID, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BETTER WITH WITHOUT THE LINES, BUT BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE WAY THE HOUSE HAS SHIFTED IN THE PAST, UM, BECAUSE OF THE BUBBLES, AESTHETICALLY, IT, YOU WON'T SEE THE LUMPS IN BETWEEN THE, THE STANDING SCENE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR REFERENCE. THE, UH, THE STRIATION ON THIS PROPERTY IS NOT, UH, AN ISSUE AT THIS TIME. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE LAST PROPERTY THAT WAS ALLOWED STRIATION BEFORE WE UPDATED THE POLICY DOCUMENT. TO BE CLEAR, UH, AS WE SEE THAT STRIATION WAS A, A NEW, UM, INDUSTRY STANDARD. OKAY. THANK YOU. THIS COMMISSIONER GIBBS HAVE A QUESTION, UM, FOR THE APPLICANT. SO WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, UM, THAT WAS ISSUED TO YOU FOR THE, UM, TYPE OF ROOF, AND THEN YOU MADE A CALL, UM, MEAN, NOT A CALL, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU MADE A JUDGMENT CALL TO GET IN, MAKE A CHANGE. WAS THERE NOT TIME FOR YOU TO GET BACK WITH STAFF AND SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE THOUGHT WE CAN GO WITH THIS, WE CAN'T GO WITH THIS NOW, CAN WE GO WITH THIS? WHY, WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO AND MAKE THE CHANGE WITHOUT CONSULTING? WELL, IN BETWEEN ALL OF THIS, UH, MY MOTHER PASSED AWAY. SO, UM, IT WAS SUDDEN DEATH OF CANCER AND, WELL, I JUST LOST END OF, OF, UH, WHAT WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING. MY, MY WORK HAD PROCEEDED WITH THE WORK, AND THAT WAS ONE OF WHAT, THAT WAS THE, THE MAIN ISSUE THAT I HAD WITH THE COMMUNICATION WITH, WITH THE, WITH THE WORK FIRM. YEAH. OKAY. AND I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THAT. SO, I'M, I'M SORRY, I, I HAD A HARD TIME HEARING YOU BECAUSE YOU WERE BREAKING UP. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN, PLEASE? YES. UH, THE, MY, MY MOTHER PASSED AWAY SUDDENLY OF CANCER. AND, UM, WITH, WITH THE COMMUNICATION OF THE WORKERS, UH, WITH, I, I GUESS WE, WE JUST LOST, UH, A SENSE OF, UM, SOME SORT OF COMMUNICATION WHERE I DID NOT HAVE TIME TO, TO INTERACT WITH THE GUYS AND PUT EVERYTHING ON HOLD AND THE GUY PROCEEDED. UM, SO YEAH, THAT'S, THAT WAS ONE OF OUR MAIN ISSUES. OKAY. SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR MOTHER ON IT. YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES. WHAT, WERE THERE OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE PRECLUDED YOU FROM DOING THAT, OR YOUR STAFF? WELL, IT WAS, THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES, OF COURSE, BUT OUR, OUR, THE REASON THAT I FELT THAT THE ROOF WAS GONNA PERFORM BETTER BECAUSE OF THE, OF, OF THE, OF THE RIBBON, THE RIBBONS BEING ONLY, YOU KNOW, X X AMOUNT OF DISTANCE ON EACH SIDE OF THE RIDGE, IF THERE WOULD EVER BE A SHIFT ON THE HOUSE AGAIN, WHICH MOST LIKELY IT WOULD BE, IT WAS GONNA WRINKLE UP AND COST LEAK OF COURSE, WHICH WOULD, OF COURSE, UM, UH, THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ROOF WOULD, WOULD NOT BE UP TO PAR. SO, UM, LIKE I SAID, WE, WE, I WENT AHEAD AND MADE SOMETHING SMALLER. IT'S A LOT SMALL. IT'S A SMALL RIDGE CAP. IT'S A, YOU KNOW, UH, I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER DONE WITH THIS SMALL, AND THE, THE MACHINES THAT WE DO, UH, HAVE TO FABRICATE WAS ABLE TO DO IT. UM, IT, IT'S, IT'S NOT AS BULKY AND IT'S NOT AS WIDE. UM, BUT OF COURSE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE GUYS TOOK INITIATIVE TO, TO PROCEED WITH, WITH THE LAST INSTRUCTION I GAVE HIM BEFORE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, WITH THE FAMILY INCIDENT, SO. RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO THIS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, UM, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER GABE. DID, DID YOU HAVE, UH, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? NO, I'M GOOD, SIR. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO STEP ON YOU THERE. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS, IT'S, IT'S OF COURSE FORTUNATE THAT THE, THE GUIDELINES WERE NOT FOLLOWED. THE STANDARDS ARE, ARE PRETTY CLEAR AND PRETTY WELL DOCUMENTED BY STAFF. BUT I'M GLAD THERE WAS THE, UH, THE CLARIFICATION THAT, UH, THE, UH, THE RE REINFORCING RIDGES WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS KIND OF, UH, NOT MADE CLEAR, UH, IN THE, IN THE GUIDELINES. AND THAT, THAT HAS BEEN, THAT HAS BEEN MORE, UH, MORE CLARIFICATION THAN STANDARDS HAVE WE SET FOR [02:35:01] THAT, UM, OF, OF ALL THE, THE SORT OF ADDITIVE BRIDGE CAPS THAT I'VE SEEN, THIS IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE LEAST OFFENSIVE ONES. AND, UH, IT'S PRETTY LOW PROFILE. UM, SO I THINK IN, IN, IN THE VAST SCHEME OF THINGS, UM, WHILE IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THEY DIDN'T, UH, FOLLOW THE WELL-DOCUMENTED REQUIREMENTS THAT I WOULD BE ACCEPTING OF THIS, UM, UH, AND NOT REQUIRE THAT, THAT, TO RIP THIS OFF, 'CAUSE THESE KIND OF PANELS CAN'T BE MUNCHED IN THE WAY THAT, UM, THAT YOU, UH, WOULD DO HISTORICALLY THAT THE ENTIRE ROOF WOULD'VE TO BE REPLACED. IT, IT'S A BIT , UH, TO REQUIRE AT THIS POINT. BUT I, YOU KNOW, I JUST ASK THAT THE, THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER IN THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, FOR ANY KIND OF FUTURE TYPES OF MODIFICATIONS THAT YOU DEFINITELY, IF YOU GET AN APPROVAL AND THERE'S A CHANGE OF PLANS, IT'S ALWAYS GREAT TO GO BACK TO STAFF. THEY'RE TERRIFIC RESOURCE FOR INFORMATION AND, UH, FOR VARIOUS OPTIONS, THEY'VE SEEN IT ALL, THEY CAN HELP THE, THE RESOURCE FOR. SO WITH THAT SAID, I, I WOULD, I WOULD MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE, UH, THE ROOF AS PRESENTED TODAY BY THE, I WOULD SECOND IT COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. AND, AND I WOULD ADD THAT I, I ALSO APPRECIATE THE, UH, UH, THE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE ROOFER'S EXPERTISE AND THE MATCHING OF THE, OF THE TWO PLANES. I, I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE SHOULD ALWAYS, UH, KEEP IN, IN CONSIDERATION FOR, UH, FOR WHY THE RIDGE VENT IS, UH, IS PLACED AND, AND REALLY BE KEEN ON QUESTION WHEN SOMEONE COMES BEFORE US AND ACTUALLY PRESENTS, UH, A, A REQUEST FOR MENT. UM, BUT I, I DO SECOND THE MOTION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL AS INSTALLED? UM, ALL IN FAVOR. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, UNMUTE NAY. RAISE YOUR HAND, SAY NAY, YOUR HAND SAY NAYYY. NAY NAYYY. I BELIEVE THAT WAS MYSELF AND COMMISSIONER FISH. SO, UM, I BELIEVE MOTION PASSES. I AGREE WITH THAT. UM, SO NEXT CASE, WE IS ALSO THE CASE MANAGER. WE'LL GIVE THEM A MOMENT TO, UM, HANG UP WITH THE APPLICANT AND DIAL IN THE NEXT ONE. HE'S GOT THE NEXT FOUR. SO WILL YOU JUST GIVE US A THUMBS UP WHEN YOU'RE READY TO BE UNMUTED? WAIT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE STARTED THE CASE FILE, BUT WE HAVE NOT UNMUTED YOU YET. OKAY, LET'S UNMUTE. WE, I THINK HE IS READY. UM, ALSO, I BELIEVE WE HAVE LOST QUORUM. UM, ANNE-MARIE NEEDED TO RECONNECT. OKAY, LOOK, JOHN LAO IS BACK. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I HAVE COUNT FIVE COMMISSIONERS RIGHT NOW. IS MR. CARPENTER THERE? OH, WONDERFUL. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT, WE, YOU CAN GO. OKAY. [27. 20-5906 Address/Description: 1903 W MULBERRY AVE HDRC Case No.: 2020-403 Historic District Name: Monticello Park Applicant: Mario Cordero/CORDERO MARIO J & SYLVIA R Request: Replace existing garage doors and replace siding City Council Dist.: 7] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 27, CASE NUMBER 20 24 0 3 AT 1903 WEST MULBERRY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REHABILITATE THE REAR GARAGE [02:40:01] STRUCTURE TO INCLUDE ONE, REMOVING THE EXISTING TILE AND VERTICAL BOARD SIDING REPAIR DAMAGE, AND INSTALL HARDY PLANK SIDING TO YOU TO REPLACE THE EXISTING WOOD IN GARAGE DOORS WITH TWO TWO ALUMINUM GARAGE DOORS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE AND TWO BASED ON FINDING C AND D WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION, ONE THAT THE REPLACEMENT HARDY SIDING FEATURE A PROFILE OF FOUR INCHES AND A SMOOTH FINISH. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE ADDITION ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION MAINTAIN THE INSET TO DIFFERENTIATE ITSELF FROM THE PRIMARY HISTORIC ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THAT THE CORNER TRIM PROFILE COULD BE REINSTALLED, AND TWO, THAT THE GARAGE DOORS RECONSTRUCTED IT AND KIND WITH WOOD MATERIALS AND SIMILAR PANEL CONFIGURATION. THIS CASE DOES COME TO US AS A COMPLIANCE CASE. THE WOODEN GARAGE DOORS WERE DISCARDED PRIOR TO APPROVAL. THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THE, UM, THE HARDY STIPULATION. SO AT THIS TIME, UH, THEY ARE PROTESTING TO USE ALUMINUM DOORS INSTEAD OF WOODEN GARAGE DOOR REPLACEMENT. UH, MR. MARIO CORDERO, UH, YOU'RE ON THE LINE IF YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF IN THE CASE. HELLO, UH, MY NAME IS MARIO CORDERO. I'M THE HOMEOWNER, AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME COMMISSION. I KNOW IT'S, UH, LATE IN THE DAY AND EVERYBODY'S PROBABLY READY, YOU KNOW, DO OTHER THINGS. UH, SO I'LL BE BRIEF. UM, I'M THANKFUL THAT THE STAFF DID, UH, APPROVE THE, UH, SIDING. UM, A LITTLE BIT DISAPPOINTED. I SUBMITTED A LOT OF PICTURES OF THE MAIN RESIDENCE, SO YOU CAN KIND OF GET A BIGGER PICTURE, WHAT I'M DOING HERE AT MY HOUSE. I MADE A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS AND I'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF GREAT FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT THEY AFFECT ME FOR, YOU KNOW, IMPROVING NOT ONLY MY HOUSE, BUT THE LOOK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO SEE THE WHOLE THING UNLESS THEY'RE ABLE SNAP'S ABLE TO PULL UP SOME OF THE OTHER PICTURES I SUBMITTED. SO THE GARAGE JUST KIND OF TIES IN WITH THAT. I'M JUST TRYING TO UPDATE IT AND IMPROVE IT. YOU CAN, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE GARAGE NEEDS A LOT OF WORK AND I'M DOING MY BEST TO, UH, MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY HAD WITH THE, UH, DOORS WAS THAT THEY WANTED, UH, WOOD. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ONES I'VE PROPOSED, THEY DO HAVE A WOOD LOOK. AND FROM THE, FROM THE STREET HOME, YOU BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE. THEY HAVE THE CUTOUT PANELS. AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT I'M NOT REQUESTING ANYTHING THAT HALF OF THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DON'T ALREADY HAVE. SO THE TWO EXAMPLES I SUBMITTED, THOSE ARE MY NEIGHBORS, LIKE EXACTLY RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME AND RIGHT TO THE SIDE OF ME. THEY BOTH HAVE THE TYPE OF DOORS I'M REQUESTING, AND IF I TAKE A WALK AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I'M SURE I'D FIND HALF OF THE HOUSES. I ALREADY HAVE THOSE KIND OF DOORS, THE GARAGE DOORS, SO I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, PROPOSING ANYTHING THAT'S NOT HERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND, UH, WITH THAT, UH, I'M DONE. I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, COREY, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? UM, I DO ACTUALLY. UM, THIS COMES FROM ROBERT CETO, UM, 1902 WEST SUMMIT. DEAR MEMBERS OF THE H C R C, THIS LETTER IS IN SUPPORT OF ITEM NUMBER 27 ON YOUR AGENDA SET FOR OCTOBER 7TH, 2020. IT'S A PRIVILEGE TO SUBMIT MY LETTER IN FAVOR OF MY NEIGHBOR'S APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AT THE PLACE OF RESIDENCY 1903 WEST MULBERRY. MY HOME IS LOCATED DIRECTLY BEHIND THE APPLICANT'S HOME. PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS, THE HOMEOWNER NOT ONLY INFORMED ME OF HIS PLANS TO RENOVATE, HE WELCOMED MY OPINION AND IDEAS FROM THE VERY START. MY WIFE AND I WERE PLEASED WITH HIS CHOICES OF COLOR, THE USING QUALITY MATERIALS AND DESIGNS, MOST MORE IMPORTANTLY, HIS CONSIDERATION FOR MAINTAINING THE PREEXISTING ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF HIS HOME AND PRESERVING THE IMAGE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH HIS DESIGN CHOICES FOR WELCOMING. WE ARE NOT ONLY, UM, DELIGHTED BUT HONORED THAT OUR NEIGHBOR AND FIRST RESPONDER TO THE SAN ANTONIO FIRE DEPARTMENT AS CHOSEN TO RENOVATE HIS HOME, NOT SELL IT, AND REMAIN A PART OF OUR IMMEDIATE COMMUNITY. UM, WHILE HE HOLDS AN ADMIR ADMIRABLE POSITION AND PRESERVING OUR CITY'S HISTORIC LANDMARKS AND PROPERTIES, MY WIFE AND I UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES, BUT HOPE THAT EACH OF YOU CONSIDER HIS DECISION TO RENOVATE THROUGH MEANS OF APPROPRIATE CHANNELS, UNLIKE MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO RENOVATE, RENOVATE WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT AND GRANT HIM A FAVORABLE APPROVAL. UM, SINCERELY, ROBERT AND DIANA CETO. THANK YOU, MR. CORDERO. UM, NOT THAT WE HAVE PURVIEW OVER PAINT COLORS, BUT WHAT COLORS WERE YOU PROPOSING FOR THE GARAGE AND THE GARAGE DOORS? UH, IT, IT'LL EXACTLY MATCH THE HOUSE. THE SAME PAINT COLORS, THE MAIN RESIDENCE, [02:45:01] AND THE GARAGE DOORS WILL BE WHITE, SO EVERYTHING WILL JUST, IT'LL BE THE SAME. IT'LL MATCH PERFECTLY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THIS IS COMMISSIONER UNE. UH, I NOTICED IN ONE OF THE PHOTOS THAT THE GARAGE DRIVEWAY IS BEING REPLACED. HAS THAT BEEN APPROVED BY STAFF? IT HAS NOT. UH, I DID NOT WORK, DO ANY WORK ON THAT, SO I COMPLETELY, UH, REDID THE FOUNDATION AND THE INTERIOR OF THE GARAGE THAT WAS COMPLETELY CRACKED. AND IT WAS, HAD TO BE. I MEAN, IT WAS JUST COMPLETELY HAD TO BE REDONE. THERE WAS NO REBAR IN IT, SO I JUST TOLD, I REDID THAT. AND WHILE THEY WERE OUTSIDE, THEY JUST WENT AND BROKE UP THE DRIVEWAY. THE DRIVEWAY WAS THE SAME. THERE WAS NO REBAR IN IT AT ALL, SO IT WAS COMPLETELY CRACKED. I, I HAVE NOT TRIED TO DO ANYTHING AS FAR AS WORK. I KNOW I NEED APPROVAL FOR THAT, SO I HAVEN'T TRIED TO DO ANYTHING AT ALL. SO I WOULD STILL NEED APPROVAL AS WELL. I NOTICED THAT IN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THERE'S A WINDOW, A SMALL WINDOW TO THE RIGHT OF THE GARAGE DOORS. AND IN YOUR DRAWING, AND IT MAY JUST BE BECAUSE IT'S A DRAWING FOR THE GARAGE DOORS, BUT ARE YOU PLANNING TO MAINTAIN THAT SMALL WINDOW? ACTUALLY, THE IDEA WAS TO REMOVE THE WINDOW AND JUST MAKE IT SOLID. THE WINDOW IS, UM, IT'S, YEAH, IT'S LIKE, LIKE THE REST OF THE GARAGE. IT'S NOT VERY, UM, UM, SOUND, I GUESS FOR LACK OF BETTER WORD. SO I'D LIKE TO JUST, UH, COVER IT AND JUST MAKE IT SOLID. ARE THERE ANY OTHER DOORS OR WINDOWS AROUND THE OTHER SIDES OF THE GARAGE? UH, THERE ARE DOORS ON THE BACKSIDE, SO IT'S LIKE IN THREE, UH, COMPARTMENTS, THERE'S, SO THERE'S THREE DOORS ALONG THE BACK. AND IF POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW, THE BEST CASE SCENARIO WOULD BE JUST TO MAKE ONE DOOR IN THE BACK, THE, YOU KNOW, ONE SOLID DOOR. UM, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE ALL THE PICTURES. YOU PROBABLY HAVE 'EM THERE THAT HAVE SUBMITTED. SO NONE OF 'EM ARE ACTUAL, UM, I GUESS REGULATION DOORS. THEY'RE ALL JUST KIND OF LIKE SWING OPEN DOORS. I LIKE TO HAVE ONE NICE DOOR IN THE CENTER I CAN ACCESS INSTEAD OF HAVING THREE DOORS THAT, UH, YEAH, THEY'RE NOT EVEN LIKE STANDARD. YOUR STANDARD DOORS ARE JUST KIND OF LIKE SWINGING OPEN DOORS. UH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE NICE DOOR. THIS COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ, UH, IT, IT, IT APPEARS THAT, THAT THIS RECOMMENDATIONS BY STAFF ARE VERY MINIMAL. UM, AND, UM, THAT, UH, IN CONJUNCTION WITH YOUR SKETCH AND WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY STAFF, THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY IN GOOD HANDS WITH STAFF ON THIS. UM, I, I, UM, WANNA ASK STAFF. STAFF IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE, UM, IS THE DRIVEWAY PART OF THIS, UM, APPLICATION? NO. THE APPLICANT, UH, HAD INITIAL CONSULTATION WITH STAFF AND WAS COOPERATIVE TO THE STOP WORK ORDER THAT NO FURTHER WORK WOULD BE DONE UNTIL THEY RESOLVED THE DOORS. INSIDING? WELL, I, I, I WOULD RECOMMEND SO WE COULD COME BACK FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. OKAY, BECAUSE WHAT, WHAT I WAS CONSIDERING WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE IT'S SO SIMPLE, IT SEEMS THAT A MOTION, BUT THAT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE COMMENTARY ON THE, ON, ON THE, THE, UH, UH, THE, THE FOUNDATION, THE, THE, UH, THE DRIVEWAY AS, AS PRESENTED IN THE PICTURE OF THE CRACKED DRIVEWAY. RIGHT? THAT IS NOT . WELL, WE ACTUALLY, SINCE IT WASN'T IT, UH, POSTED ON THE AGENDA, WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION ON THE, THE DRIVEWAY. WE CAN COMMENT ON IT, BUT IT WON'T BE IN OUR, OUR, UH, ACTION. UH, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. OKAY. WELL THEN I, I, IF, IF, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, UH, APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I SECOND THAT MOTION. THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT THE OTHER DOORS AND THE, THE CLOSING OF THE, [02:50:01] IT APPEARS TO BE THE HISTORIC WINDOW, UM, THAT'S ALSO NOT LISTED IN THIS APPLICATION. IS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS SUPERSEDED BY THE ELEVATION THAT SHOWS IT CLOSED? OR IS, DOES THAT NEED TO BE A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT ITEM THAT, THAT WOULD NEED TO BE A DIFFERENT ITEM? UH, STAFF HAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THIS REQUEST WHEN REFERRING TO THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS. WE WERE ONLY USING IT FOR THE DOORS AND CITING PROFILE. SO I, I DON'T, I, BECAUSE BECAUSE THE MOTION IS ON THE, ON THE REQUEST ITEMS THAT ARE ENUMERATED IN THE AGENDA, UH, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR WITH THE OWNER THAT THE, THE OTHER DOORS ON, AROUND THE OTHER SIDE AND THIS WINDOW IS NOT PART OF WHAT'S BEING TAKEN, UH, WHAT ACTION IS BEING TAKEN ON TODAY. AND, AND THAT'LL HAVE TO BE A SEPARATE REQUEST ITEM THAT IS REVIEWED. MY PERSONAL FEELING IS THE HISTORIC DOORS AND WINDOWS SHOULD, UH, BE PRESERVED. ALRIGHT. THAT, THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANKS COM. COMMISSIONER FISH, WITH RESPECT TO, UM, WITH RESPECT TO YOUR COMMENTS THAT, UH, WE WANNA HAVE A COMPLETE, A COMPLETE MOTION, UH, WHICH IS, WHICH KIND OF KIND OF GETS TO THE REASON, AND I, I, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICATION COMES IN THE WAY THAT IT COMES IN, BUT IT JUST SEEMS THAT THERE WERE OTHER ISSUES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRABBED BECAUSE IT, IT COULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE PART OF THE APPLICATION. IT'S STILL ONE BUILDING THAT HAS AN END A A AN EXPECTED END RESULT, RIGHT? THAT IT, IT, THAT, THAT, THAT LITTLE WINDOW THAT'S THERE, I WOULD THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE AN EXPECTATION, UM, THAT IS REASONABLE TO HAVE AN EXPECTATION THAT THAT WOULD BE CAPTURED, RIGHT? THAT IT, THAT IT'S NOT CAPTURED IN THIS, I'M, I'M, YOU KNOW, TO, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE. BUT I, I COULD SEE, UM, UM, CHANGING THE MOTION TO, UM, APPROVING. WELL SEE, IT GETS KIND OF HARD, RIGHT? BECAUSE IF THEY'RE NOT ON THE AGENDA, COMMISSIONER, I, I DON'T THINK THAT THE MOTION NEEDS TO BE AMENDED BECAUSE WE CAN ONLY TAKE ACTION ON WHAT, WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA. THE WINDOW IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. SO I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO, TO CALL SOMETHING SEPARATE OR SPECIAL, AND MAYBE THE ATTORNEY CAN ADVISE US ON THAT. WELL, ONE, ONE LAST THING. IF, IF THE ATTORNEY'S GONNA GONNA, THEY'RE GONNA WEIGH IN, THEN, THEN INCLUDE THIS IN, IN YOUR CONSIDERATION WHAT THE MOTION INCLUDED A, A VISIT WITH THE D R C, THEN THOSE THINGS COULD BE PICKED UP SO THE PERSON COULD COME BACK AND HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S EXPECTED. 'CAUSE IT JUST SEEMS THAT IT'S SO SIMPLE. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT THERE'D BE AN ARGUMENT ABOUT. WELL, I, I, FRANKLY, I SUPPORT YOUR MOTION. I JUST, I'M TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT IT'S, IT'S ONLY INCLUSIVE OF THOSE ISSUES THAT ARE ENUMERATED HERE AND THOSE ISSUES THAT AREN'T HERE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. LIKE THE DRIVEWAY. IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO COME UP, COME BACK. THIS IS THE WINDOW AS WELL, AND THE DOORS AS WELL. , THE APPLICANT, THE CHOICE TO COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT THE DOORS. AND I'M SURE THAT STAFF WILL BE ON TOP OF THAT AS WELL. IT'S NOT BEING DISCUSSED. I, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE A WAY TO MAKE THE MOTION SO THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO US, BUT IT CAN BE HANDLED WITH STAFF. AND THEN IF IT DOESN'T COME BACK TO US, THEN UH, WE CONTINUE ON WITH OTHER CASES. RIGHT. AND SO, BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A SIMPLE SITUATION, THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY I'D LIKE TO MAKE, MENTION THE WINDOW AND MAKE MENTION OF THE DOORS. YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER, UH, VELASQUEZ, THIS IS, UH, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I, I THINK AS, AS WAS JUST SAID, UH, IF, IF THE OWNER WISHES TO, UH, JUST REPAIR THOSE EXISTING WINDOWS AND DOORS, THEN THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE MAINTENANCE ITEM THERE. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BACK WITH H D R C AT ALL. I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, AS YOU SAID, PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I SUPPORT THE MOTION. I SECOND THE MOTION. UNDERSTOOD. LET'S, LET'S, I, I, I THINK THOSE OTHER ISSUES CAN BE DEALT WITH BY STAFF. UH, UNDERSTOOD. THANK, THANK THAT'S VERY CLARIFYING. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. YEAH, AND IF, IF THE OWNER WISHES TO REMOVE THE WINDOW OR REMOVE THE DOORS, THEN HE'S GONNA HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE THAT CHOICE AND, AND SUBMIT ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR THAT. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF STIPULATIONS. ALL IN FAVOR? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAYYY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO, OKAY. [28. 20-5898 Address/Description: 317 E MYRTLE HDRC Case No.: 2020-406 Historic District Name: Tobin Hill Applicant: Julio Nieto/Julios Services LLC Request: Metal roof installation, window replacement City Council Dist.: 1] UM, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE. ITEM 28. UM, WE'RE GONNA UNMUTE BOTH WE AND RACHEL. RACHEL SHOULD HAVE THE APPLICANT [02:55:01] ON THE LINE. WE WENT AHEAD AND CALLED THE APPLICANT SO THAT, THAT WE'RE READY TO BEGIN. UH, BEGIN WITH THE NEXT CASE. UM, WE, IF YOU ARE THERE, UM, YOU CAN BEGIN READING THE CASE INTO THE RECORD. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 28, CASE NUMBER 20 24 0 6 AT 3 1 7 EAST MYRTLE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO RENOVATE THE REAR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, INCLUDING ONE, REPLACE ALL WOOD WINDOWS WITH NEW ALUMINUM WINDOWS TO INCLUDE WINDOW OPENING, REMOVAL, RESIZING AND RELOCATION. TWO, THE REMOVAL OF TWO DOOR OPENINGS ON THE SECOND FLOOR, AND THE INSTALLATION OF NEW DOOR OPENINGS ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THREE, THE INSTALLATION OF MATCHING WOOD LAP SIDING ONLY IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING SIDING IS COMPLETELY MISSING OR DETERIORATED. AND FOUR, REPLACEMENT OF THE COMPOSITION ASPHALT ROOF WITH A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF, INCLUDING A RIDGE CAP. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF WINDOW REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING D WITH THE STIPULATION THAT A WOOD WINDOW PRODUCT THAT ADHERES TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF WOOD WINDOW REPLACEMENT IS INSTALLED. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE ORIGINAL WINDOW, LOCATIONS, AND WINDOW OPENINGS BE RESTORED. THE PROPOSED WINDOW IS TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY O H P STAFF PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION. TWO. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF DOOR MODIFICATION BASED ON FINDING E WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE ORIGINAL SECOND FLOOR DOOR OPENING ON THE WEST ELEVATION IS RESTORED. THE PROPOSED NEW DOORS ARE TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY O H P STAFF PRIOR TO PURCHASING INSTALLATION. THREE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF SIDING INSTALLATION AS PROPOSED BASED ON FINDING F WITH A STIPULATION THAT ONLY COMPLETELY MISSING AND DETERIORATED AREAS ARE REPLACED. NO ORIGINAL WOOD SIDING SHOULD BE REPLACED OR DISCARDED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL STAFF REVIEW. AND FOUR, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ROOF REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING G WITH THE STIPULATIONS. THE SPANISH SPECIFICATIONS FOR METAL ROOFS ARE ADHERED TO, WHICH EXCLUDES THE USE OF RICH CAP. THIS CASE DOES COME TO US AS COMPLIANCE CASE. UH, STAFF CONDUCTED A SITE VISIT ON SEPTEMBER 3RD AND FOUND THAT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WAS SUBJECT TO WINDOW SIDING AND ROOF REPLACEMENT PRIOR TO HISTORIC APPROVAL AND WITHOUT PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION ON SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2020, TO BE HEARD AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE H D R C HEARING. I BELIEVE, UH, JULIO NIETO IS ON THE LINE. JULIO, IF YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF. YES. UM, I'M, I'M ON LINE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, SIR. YOU CAN, UM, BEGIN ANY OPENING STATEMENTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION ASKS QUESTIONS IN RETURN. OKAY. I HAD, UM, WHEN WE STARTED WORKING ON THIS PROJECT, WE'RE WORKING ON THE OUTSIDE OF IT, RIGHT? SO SOME OF THE WINDOWS WERE GONE. UM, LIKE I SAID, THESE WINDOWS WEREN'T EVEN IN PLACE. WE DO HAVE SOME EXISTING WOOD FRAMES THERE. I MEAN, WINDOW WOOD FRAMES THAT WE HAVE THERE, BUT THEY'RE BOTH, I MEAN, THERE'S NO WAY OF SALVAGING ON, NOT SALVAGING THEM, THE WINDOW FRAMES. SO ON THE OPENINGS, WE KEPT THE ORIGINAL OPENING, UM, WITH, AS, AS IN A TWO WINDOW INSTALLATION, WE DID HAVE TO WIND IT WIDE, WIDEN THE OPENING A LITTLE MORE LIKE TWO INCHES TO EACH SIDE JUST TO MAKE THE NEW WINDOWS FIT. BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS WERE 28 AND A HALF. AND THE NEW WINDOWS THAT WE INSTALLED WERE 31 AND A HALF. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. I DON'T HAVE MY INFO ON ME 'CAUSE I WAS ACTUALLY ALREADY GONE FROM THE HOME. I THOUGHT I HAD MISSED MY, MY MEETING WITH Y'ALL TODAY. SO I'M TRYING TO GO OFF OF, UM, WHAT I'M REMEMBERING. AND SO THE, WE, WE NEVER ALTERED NO, UM, WINDOWS AS FAR AS MAY, UH, MOVING THEM FROM THEIR EXISTING LOCATION. I KNOW OVER IN THE BACK, UM, CORNER, I THINK FROM WHAT I SAW ON Y'S NOTE THAT IT WAS A, A SLEEPING HEC UH, SLEEPING HEADQUARTER. I DON'T KNOW HOW Y'ALL, HOW Y'ALL IDENTIFIED THAT AREA. IT'S ON THE ALLEY. UM, THE SLEEPING PORCH. YEAH, THERE YOU GO. THAT ONE THERE HAD, IT HAD ONE WINDOW WHERE IT WAS JUST AN OPENING. IT WAS BOARDED UP. SO THAT OPENING WASN'T REALLY, I MEAN, AND PLUS LIKE ALL THESE OPENINGS FROM THE WINDOWS THAT WERE THERE, THE, THERE WAS NO HEADERS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO WE DID, WE WENT AHEAD AND INSTALLED HEADERS TO MAKE THE STRUCTURE MORE, UM, MORE SAFE AND, UM, UP TO CODE. AND SO THERE WOULDN'T BE NO ISSUES WITH THE, WITH THE OPENING BEING SO WIDE WITHOUT A HEADER. SO THAT WAS THE ISSUE WITH THAT, WITH THE WINDOWS. AND WE WENT WITH ALUMINUM, UM, TO GIVE THE, THE [03:00:01] HOMEOWNER A ENERGY EFFICIENT WINDOW. UM, AND ON THE METAL ROOF WE WENT WITH THE RIDGE PLANT. 'CAUSE A LOT OF THE ROOF ROOFS THERE, METAL ROOFS THAT ARE THERE, THEY, THEY ALL HAVE THAT RICH CAP. SO WE'RE THINKING WE WOULD STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE FOR THAT. AND I KNOW I, WE SHOULD HAVE PUT PERMITS AND ALL, AND WE FIGURED SINCE WE'RE JUST MESSING WITH THE OUTSIDE ON THE ROOF, WE DIDN'T HAVE TO, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME DOING THE HISTORIC PROPERTY. AND I, I, I MEAN, I, THAT I'M SORRY FOR NOT GETTING WITH THE EFFORTS AND, UM, SEEING WHAT, WHAT, WHAT RULES HAD TO BE ABIDE BY. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, CITIZEN COMMENTS. WHAT WAS THAT? I'M SORRY. WE'RE GONNA READ, UM, PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE CASE RIGHT NOW. WE JUST HAVE ONE FROM RICKY KUSHNER, 4 0 5 EAST MYRTLE. THIS IS A STATEMENT. OKAY. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF THE TOKEN HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. WE HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE OWNERS REGARDING THIS PROJECT. THE OWNERS ARE TO BE COMMITTED FOR WANTING TO REHABILITATE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BEHIND THREE 17 EAST MYRTLE OF THE TOKEN HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT. BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION AND SIZE, IT HAS BECOME AN IO IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HOWEVER, REPAIRING AND PLACING STRUCTURES WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT WITHOUT PERMIT AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE HISTORIC GUIDELINES IS UNFORTUNATE. UM, WE WERE GLAD TO SEE WORK BEING DONE, BUT DISMAYED TO SEE THE RESULTS. THE BUILDING NO LONGER SHOWS RELATIONSHIP TO THE BEAUTIFULLY RESTORED HOUSE. IT SITS BEHIND WE HOLD WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINE, THAT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES SUCH AS WINDOWS, DOORS, CLADDING, AND OTHER SUCH DETAILS SHOULD BE REPLACED IN KIND WITH AS LITTLE ALTERATION AS POSSIBLE. THEREFORE, WE AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF O H P STAFF, AND WE HOPE THAT THE REDIRECTED PROJECT WILL RESULT IN A REHABILITATE REHABILITATED STRUCTURE THAT WILL FIT IN WITH THE SEVERAL OTHER RESTORED BUILDINGS NEARBY, OR THANKS TO O H P STAFF AND THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE WORK AND SUPPORT OF PRESERVATION OF OUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IS GROUP, I FEEL STAFF HAS A RIGHT ON THIS ONE IN ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. UM, IT'S REALLY, UM, IT'S A TWO STORY ACCESS STRUCTURE. SO IT'S VISIBLE FROM THE ALLEY DISTRICT NEXT TO A BEAUTIFUL HOME. UM, I FEEL LIKE MAYBE, UH, THE CONTRACTOR PROBABLY DIDN'T KNOW, BUT I FEEL LIKE THE OWNERS WILL ACTUALLY BENEFIT FROM, UH, FROM STAFF RECOMME AND, AND REALLY MAKE THIS, UH, A REALLY NICE REMODEL. THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. UH, I COMPLETELY CONCUR WITH THOSE AND, UH, THE VERY WELL WRITTEN LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, UH, REPRESENTATIVE, UH, THIS COMMISSIONER, UH, ALTER THE WINDOWS. UH, WERE THOSE DISPOSED OF, OR ARE THERE THE ORIGINAL WINDOWS, THOSE THAT WERE INTACT? UH, WAS ANYTHING SALVAGED OR DID EVERYTHING GO INTO THE DUMPSTER THAT WE HERE? THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE COMMISSIONER, IF YOU MAY. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. ON A SITE VISIT. WHEN WE FIRST FOUND A VIOLATION, STAFF FOUND, UH, FOUR SASHES STILL ON SITE. HOWEVER, THEY WERE IN, UH, COMPLETE DISREPAIR, WHICH IS WHY WE HAD THE FINDING THAT IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT RATHER THAN, UH, REPAIR. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR, FOR CLARIFYING THAT AND REMINDING ME OF THAT FINDING. SO I, I AGREE. I THINK STAFF HAS THIS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THERE'S JUST TOO MANY THINGS HAVE GONE AWRY WITH, UH, THIS, UH, PROJECT AS IT IS. AND I THINK THE OWNERS WILL BE HAPPY WITH, UH, MAYBE, UH, FOLLOWING, UH, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. SO I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF STAFF'S, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS A SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND FOR APPROVAL WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. ALL IN FAVOR? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAYYY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. [29. 20-5882 Address/Description: 109 CANAL ST HDRC Case No.: 2020-431 Historic District Name: Lavaca Applicant: Martin Lopez/LOPEZ MARTIN & MARIA Request: Window replacement City Council Dist.: 1] OKAY, WE'RE GONNA LET WE GET THE APPLICANT FOR ITEM 29 ON THE LINE. I BELIEVE, UH, EDWARD HAS THEM ON THE LINE. OH. SO I'LL BEGIN. UH, CASE, GREAT. AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER 29, CASE NUMBER 20 24 31 AT 1 0 9 CANAL. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO REPLACE 10 WOOD SLASH WINDOWS WITH NEW VINYL WINDOWS. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF WINDOW REPLACEMENT BASED ON FINDING B THROUGH C. THE REMOVED WOOD WINDOWS SHOULD BE REPAIRED AND REINSTALLED. THIS DOES COME TO US AS A COMPLIANCE CASE. STAFF ON A SITE VISIT IDENTIFIED ALL OF THE WOOD WINDOWS AND SASHES WERE STILL ON SITE AND ADVISED THE [03:05:01] APPLICANT TO STORE THEM. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THROUGH THE, UM, THE EXHIBITS. I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, MARTIN IS ON THE LINE. AND MARTIN, DO YOU HAVE THE CONTRACTOR THERE AS WELL WITH YOU? UH, YES I DO, SIR. OKAY. IF YOU GUYS WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF WITH OPENING COMMENTS AND THEN THE COMMISSION CAN RESPOND. UH, YES. MY NAME IS MARTIN LOPEZ. UM, UH, GREEN, UH, COMMISSIONER, BASICALLY, UH, THE BOTTOM LINE FRONT. I, UM, IN MID-JULY, WELL, THAT'S WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE. I KIND OF, UM, GOT A CONTRACT WHEN, AND SHE NEEDED FOR A CONTRACT AND THE CITY GAVE ME A CONTRACT NUMBER, UM, WITH A NOTE SAYING THAT I, UM, I NEED TO RESUBMIT ANOTHER CONTRACT FOR THE CAR PORT. BUT ON THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT, I PUT GENERAL, UH, MAINTENANCE IN THE HOUSE AND REPLACING THE WINDOWS, UH, WHEN THE PERMIT CAME BACK WITH A NUMBER X-RAY 2 6 3 5 0 8 6. AND THE NOTE SAYING, I NEED TO SUBMIT A DIFFERENT PERMIT FOR THE CARPORT. SO AT THAT TIME, I THOUGHT I HAD A PERMIT. UM, SO WHEN THE COMPANY I HIRED CHAMPION WINDOWS WENT ON THERE AND, UM, TO, UM, TO GET A PERMIT, HE TOLD ME THERE WAS A PERMIT ALREADY, SO THEY DIDN'T NEED TO GET ANOTHER PERMIT. SO HE INSTALLED THE WINDOWS IN, UM, ON THE 14TH OF SEPTEMBER. IT WAS OVER ABOUT 45 DAYS AFTER I SUBMITTED THE PERMIT. UM, HE SAW THE WINDOWS, THEY COMPLETED, ALMOST COMPLETED THEM, BUT, UM, THE INSPECTOR CAME AND, AND CLOSED THEM DOWN. UH, THEN THE CITY, UM, ON SEPTEMBER 1ST TOLD ME THAT I DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT BECAUSE I DIDN'T SUBMIT IT AN INSURANCE DOCUMENT, WHICH I DIDN'T KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THAT. AND HE NEVER TOLD ME ANYTHING THAT I DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT. UH, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE, SIR. THANK YOU. UH, CITIZENS COMMENTS. WE DO NOT, UM, THE, THE TWO THAT ARE LISTED ARE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED BY MR. LOPEZ WHO JUST SPOKE. OKAY. UM, A QUESTION FOR STAFF, DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY EVIDENCE OF A PERMIT THAT, THAT EXTENDED? YES. UH, STAFF, YES, STAFF DID, UH, REVIEW SOME OF THE PERMIT DOCUMENTS WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WAS CORRECT IN, IN MISUNDERSTANDING AND INCOMPLETE NOTICE FOR A PERMIT WITH A PARTIAL PERMIT APPROVAL. SO ORIGINALLY WHEN SUBMITTED, THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A PERMIT FOR A CARPORT REPAIR AS WELL AS WINDOW REPLACEMENT. WITH THE INCOMPLETE NOTICE THEY RECEIVED FROM THE PERMITTING DEPARTMENT SAYING THAT A CARPORT PERMIT WOULD REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT. THEY THOUGHT THAT MEANT THE WINDOW SIDE WAS APPROVED. AND THEN, UH, O H P GOT INVOLVED, UH, WITH A, A NEIGHBOR REPORT ON SEPTEMBER 14TH. SO JUST TO, JUST TO FOLLOW UP, THE CITY ISSUED A PERMIT FOR THE WINDOW REPLACEMENT WITHOUT, NO, NO, THE CITY DID NOT. OKAY. OKAY. IT WAS A MISUNDER, A MISUNDERSTANDING ON BEHALF OF THE, THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS IN THE APPROVAL OF THE, OF THE PERMIT PROCESS. WELL, AND THE ACTUAL PERMIT WAS NEVER ISSUED. SO A PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR, IT WAS INCOMPLETE AND IT WAS WORK WAS DONE UNDER AN OPEN PERMIT, BUT THAT PERMIT WAS NEVER CLOSED AND ISSUED. I UNDERSTAND NOW. THE PERMIT WAS NEVER ISSUED. OKAY. SO THIS IS MOVING THROUGH THE PROCESS. UM, MY, MY, MY, UH, TAKE ON THIS IS STAFF. STAFF HAS IT, RIGHT? THESE ARE, THIS IS A HISTORIC AREA. THESE ARE HISTORIC WINDOWS. UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO ASK THE, THE APPLICANT IF THE, THE WINDOWS THAT WERE REMOVED ARE, ARE BEING STORED ON SITE? UH, YES, I DO HAVE 'EM, SIR. UM, THEY'RE, I MEAN THE, THE CHAMPIONS REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE. AND YOU SEE THAT PICTURE ON THE, ON THE TOP ONE. THAT'S MY BACK DOOR. AND THAT'S WINDOWS. THEY'RE, UH, THEY'RE ALL, UM, FOLDED UP. THERE WAS PLYWOOD AROUND THE WINDOWS. 'CAUSE THEY, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I GUESS THEY WERE HOLDING UP. AND THE OTHER WINDOWS WERE HOLDING UP WITH, UM, THE STEEL BARS, THE STEEL BARS, UH, JUST TO PUT THEM THE, UH, I MEAN SECURITY. UM, AND THEY WERE, THEY WERE NOT OPEN. THEY WERE NOT OPEN. WHEN I BOUGHT [03:10:01] THE HOUSE, I, I KIND OF NOTED THERE WAS GONNA BE A CHALLENGE. NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 36, UM, I GOT THE GUIDANCE FOR MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. 'CAUSE I ASKED HER, SO WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET, UH, MY WINDOWS APPROVED? AND SHE GUIDE ME THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND SHE HAS FINAL WINDOWS. THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I THOUGHT IT. APPROVAL. AND SLIDE, UH, PAGE EIGHT OR 36 TO SEE THAT MY, MY NEXT DOOR. AND SHE HAS VINYL WINDOWS AND, AND THERE WITH VINYL WINDOWS. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE, TO THE SITUATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS. THE, THE WINDOW SPECIFICATIONS THAT, THAT THIS, UH, COMMISSION HAS ADOPTED HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR A NUMBER, A NUMBER OF YEARS. AND WHEN WE HAVE A HISTORIC, WHEN WE HAVE AN HISTORIC WOOD WINDOW, UH, THE GUIDELINES SAY THAT THEY SHOULD BE REPAIRED AND, UH, MAINTAINED AND REPAIRED, IF POSSIBLE. IF THEY MUST BE REPLACED BECAUSE THE WINDOW IS BEYOND REPAIR, THEN THEY SHOULD BE REPLACED IN KIND. SO, UH, THE, THE GUIDELINES ARE VERY CLEAR ON THAT. AND I, I CONCUR WITH STAFF. I, I MOVE FOR, FOR DENIAL. THIS IS COMMISSIONER CARPENTER. I, UH, SECOND THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION. AND SECOND FOR DENIAL. ALL IN FAVOR. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAY. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. [30. 20-5861 Address/Description: 1323 FULTON AVE HDRC Case No.: 2020-413 Historic District Name: Fulton Applicant: Paul Tausch/TAUSCH VENTURES LLC Request: Window material amendment, fenestration modifications, porte-cochere reconstruction City Council Dist.: 1] OKAY. UM, AND LET'S HAVE WE AND JESS UNMUTED FOR ITEM 30. WE'RE READY. AGENDA ITEM 30, CASE NUMBER 20 24 13 AT 1323 FULTON, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR APPROVAL TO ONE, AMEND THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR FULL WOOD WINDOW REPLACEMENT TO ALLOW FOR ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS OF APPLIED GEM. BRAND TWO, PERFORM THE FOLLOWING FENESTRATION MODIFICATION, A EAST SIDE RE ELEVATION, MODIFY A SET OF TRIPLE WINDOWS TO DOUBLE WINDOWS AND RAISE THE HEAD HEIGHT B ON THE NORTH REAR ELEVATION, REMOVE A SIX FOOT WIDE DOUBLE DOOR AND THREE FOOT WIDE WINDOW TO REPLACE WITH TWO BY SIX WINDOWS. B ON THE NORTHWEST REAR CORNER. REMOVE TWO THREE FOOT WIDE DOORS AND REPLACE WITH TWO SIX FOOT WIDE DOUBLE DOORS. D ON THE WEST SIDE ELEVATION. REMOVE THREE FOOT WIDE WINDOW OPENING AND REPLACE REMAINING OREO WINDOW WITH SASH WINDOW. AN E SOUTHWEST FRONT CORNER, REMOVE THE THREE FOOT WIDE WINDOW OPENING. AND THEN THREE, RECONSTRUCT THE PORTICO SHARE ON THE EAST ELEVATION. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE. THE AMENDMENT OF REPLACEMENT WINDOWS STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT WOOD WINDOWS BE INSTALLED THAT MEETS STAFF SPECIFICATIONS FOR WINDOW REPLACEMENT. AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, THE REPLACEMENT WINDOWS IS TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY STAFF PRIOR TO PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION. TWO. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ITEMS TWO A THROUGH T E BASED ON FINDING D THROUGH H. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE ORIGINAL FENESTRATION PATTERNS BE RESTORED. AND THREE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM THREE, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PORT OF SHARE. BASED ON FINDING I, THIS REQUEST DOES COME TO US AS A VIOLATION CASE. THE APPLICANT RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR WOOD WINDOW REPLACEMENT FROM H D R C IN SEPTEMBER, 2019 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT WOOD WINDOW PRODUCT IS SUBMITTED TO STAFF. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, THE STIPULATION HAD NOT BEEN MET AND NEITHER A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS NOR PERMITS WERE ISSUED. STAFF ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER IN JULY, 2020 FOR WINDOW REPLACEMENT AND FENESTRATION MODIFICATIONS PRIOR TO APPROVAL DUE TO WORK CONTINUING, INCLUDING THE DEMOLITION OF THE PORT SHARE. STAFF ISSUED A SECOND STOP WORK ORDER IN AUGUST, 2020 AND THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION ON SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2020. THE ASSOCIATED POST-WORK APPLICATION FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS ON THE LINE. UH, PAUL TOSH, IF YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF WITH OPENING COMMENTS AND THEN THE COMMISSION CAN RESPOND. YES. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR MY CASE TODAY. UM, FIRST, LET ME STATE OUR FIRST HISTORIC PROJECT ON OUR FIRST IN THE AREA. UH, CONSEQUENTLY, THIS, THIS PROPERTY, UM, HAS SEVERELY DETERIORATED BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF MAINTENANCE THROUGHOUT THE YEARS. HOWEVER, OUR INTENDED IS TO CONTINUE TO BRING THIS PROPERTY BACK TO LIFE IN ORDER TO CLOSELY [03:15:01] RETAIN THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE HOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, MOREOVER, WHEN WE APPLIED FOR THE HISTORIC WINDOW REPLACEMENT, WE ALSO APPLIED FOR GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT AND RECEIVED THAT FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WHICH IS AP NUMBER 2 5 1 6 0 7 8 FOR THE APPROPRIATE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY. UM, HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSION ON WHAT WAS INITIALLY ALLOWED WITH OUR PERMIT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT AND COME TO AN EQUITABLE AGREEMENT, UM, WITH THE COMMISSION TODAY. UM, NOW I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS OUR REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER ONE THAT OUR CASE MANAGER, UH, FIRST ALLUDED TO. AND WE ASKED TO AMEND THE APPLICATION FROM A FULL WOOD WINDOW TO A FULL WOOD WINDOW WITH EXTERIOR ALUMINUM PLA. UM, OUR ORIGINAL APPROVAL BACK IN 2019 STATED FOOT, THE FULL WOOD WINDOW AND NOT AN EXCLUSION OF ANY CLASS OF ANY TYPE OF ALUMINUM SIDING. SO UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE INITIAL CONFUSION STARTED. UM, THE REQUESTED WINDOWS ARE HIGH-END BY GYM FULL WOOD WINDOWS WITH EXTERIOR ALUMINUM SIDING. THE SASH CONSTRUCTION FOR HISTORICALLY ACCURATE WOULD LOOK, UH, THE WINDOWS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHAT CURRENTLY EXIST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS THERE'S A MIX OF ALUMINUM, VINYL, WOOD, PLAID, AND ORIGINAL DETERIORATING WOOD WINDOWS. UH, THE NEW WINDOWS WILL BE CASED OUT, UH, HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE WITH ONE BY SIX AND SLOPED WITH A FILL IN ORDER TO BLEND ENDLESSLY WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, THE WINDOW SPEC SHEET IS ATTACHED, UH, TO YOUR AGENDA, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS ON PAGE NUMBER REPORT AND IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO STAFF. THEY HAVE, UH, REVIEW THAT. UH, MOREOVER, IF THE CLADDING WERE REMOVED ON THE EXISTING WINDOWS AND EXPOSED, UM, AND THE WOOD PAINTED, IT WOULD BE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE STREET. UM, IN ADDITION, WHEN I WAS REVIEWING SOME OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS LAST MONTH, THERE WAS A PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE SAME TYPE OF WINDOWS, UH, FOR CASE NUMBER 3 99 AT 2 44 GREENLAW. UM, AS SUCH, THESE STYLE AND TYPES OF WINDOWS THAT ALUMINUM PLATING HAVE BEEN USED AND ARE BEING USED IN OTHER HISTORIC AREAS. UH, TO ADDRESS ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE ELEVATION, THE EAST SIDE ELEVATION, WHICH IS DEPICTED ON YOUR PAGES, I BELIEVE 17 THROUGH 20. UM, THIS ELEVATION STATES THAT THE RIGHT REAR MASTER BATH, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS WAS AN ORIGINAL TRIPLE WINDOW, UM, AS THE OPENING WAS NOT, UM, ORIGINAL. AND, AND WHEN WE, UH, PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, UM, ALSO ALL PRIOR INTERIOR FRAMING WAS CHANGED IN ORDER TO MODIFY THAT TRIPLE WINDOW OPENING. SO AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS ORIGINAL. UM, WE'RE REQUESTING THAT THE SIZE BE CHANGED TO THE DOUBLE WINDOW IN ORDER TO PROVIDE MORE WALL SPACE AND ACCOMMODATE FOR A MORE FUNCTIONAL BACKING SIMULATION. UM, THIS CHANGE WILL NOT BE EVIDENT FROM THE STREET, NOR DOES IT DETRACT FROM THE HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS. UM, ITEM NUMBER B, THE NORTH REAR ELEVATION, UM, THAT'S DEPICTED ON PAGES 21 THROUGH 23. UM, THE ELEVATION STATES REMOVED AND COVER A TWO INCH FRENCH DOOR AND A THREE FOOT WINDOW. AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE THIS WAS AN ORIGINAL DOOR OPENING AS ALL IN ALL THE INTERIOR FRAMING. UM, PRIOR TO US PURCHASING THIS PROPERTY WAS DONE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS NON-ORIGINAL METAL DOOR. UM, IT'S ON THE BACK SIDE WHERE IT'S THE BOLT AND REAR IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT THE PHOTOS. UM, MOREOVER THE, YEAH, REMOVAL OF THE ADDITIONAL THREE FOOT WINDOW TO THE RIGHT OF THAT, AND THE ADDITION OF THE TWO FOOT BY SIX FOOT WINDOWS WILL ALLOW FOR GREATER LIGHT AND FUNCTIONALITY AS WELL. UM, THIS CHANGE WILL NOT BE EVIDENT FROM THE STREET, NOR DOES IT DETRACT FROM HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS. UM, ITEM NUMBER C UH, IS THE NORTHWEST REAR CORNER DEPICTED ON PAGES 24 THROUGH 26. UH, THE ELEVATION STATES TO REMOVE AND COVER A THREE FOOT BY SIX FOOT DOOR OPENING. THE THREE FOOT ORIGINAL DOOR OPENING TO THE LEFT OF THE PHOTO, UM, WILL BE COVERED AND MOVED OVER TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW 48 INCH WIDE FRENCH DOOR. UM, THIS WILL ELIMINATE AN UNUSED ADDITIONAL BACK DOOR THAT WAS INSTALLED PRIOR TO US PURCHASING AND PROVIDE GREATER FUNCTIONALITY TO THE BEDROOM AREA. UH, THE OTHER THREE FOOT DOOR THAT STAFF ALLUDED TO, UM, TO THE RIGHT OF THE PHOTO ON THAT SAME PAGE ON 24 WILL ALSO BE COVERED AND MOVED OVER TO ACCOMMODATE FOR A 72 INCH FRONT DOOR. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS AN ORIGINAL DOOR AS ALL FIRING, TIER FRAMING WAS REDONE WITH PURCHASED IT. UH, THIS CHANGE PROVIDES GREATER FUNCTIONALITY OF THE KITCHEN AREA, UM, AS WELL AS ACCESS AND WHAT'S NEEDED LIFE TO THE DINING AND THE LIVING AREA. UH, THESE CHANGES, AGAIN, WILL NOT BE EVIDENT FROM THE STREET, NOR DOES IT DETRACT FROM HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS BUILDING. UM, ON ITEM NUMBER D [03:20:01] IS THE WEST SIDE ELEVATION DEPICTED ON PAGE 27 THROUGH 29. UM, THE ELEVATION STATES REMOVE AND COVER A THREE FOOT SINGLE WINDOW AND KITCHEN WINDOW REMOVE BAY, AND CHANGED TO A DOUBLE PUMP WINDOW. UM, THIS ORIGINAL THREE FOOT WINDOW WAS LOCATED IN THE KITCHEN ENTRY AREA. IT WAS VERY CUMBERSOME AND INTERFERED WITH THE FUNCTION OF IT. REMOVAL OF THIS WINDOW WOULD ALLOW FOR GREATER USE OF THIS ENTRY AREA. THE THREE FOOT ALUMINUM BAY WINDOW THAT IS LOCATED IN THE KITCHEN WAS NOT ORIGINAL, UM, BUT WILL BE REPLACED WITH A DOUBLE THUMB, THREE FOOT WINDOW THAT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE BUILDING TO STORE CHARACTER. AND THEN, UM, THE LAST ITEM, NUMBER E, WHICH IS ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. UM, IT SAYS SOUTHWEST FRONT CORNER, DEPICTED ON PAGES 30 THROUGH 32. UM, THIS ELEVATION JUST STATES TO REMOVE AND COVER THE THREE FOOT WINDOW. UH, WE WANT TO REMOVE THIS ONE WINDOW AS PROVIDE WALL SPACE AND ALLOW FOR FUNCTIONAL LAYOUT OF THE LIVING AREA, UM, IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. UM, LOWER OVER. THIS WINDOW IS COVERED WITH DENT FOLIAGE AND IS FAIRLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AT ALL. UM, LASTLY, ITEM NUMBER THREE, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A, OF THE COVERED AREA ON THE EAST ELEVATION. UH, WE ARE IN, IN AGREEMENT WITH THOSE SAID FINDINGS AND PLANS WERE SUBMITTED, UH, FOR APPROVAL TO STAFF. UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR TODAY. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IF WE HAVE COMMENTS. WE DID NOT. OKAY. I, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL. SO WHY, WHY WERE ALL THESE CHANGES TO THE FENESTRATION SIZES, RELOCATION OF ALL THESE PIECES, NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS FOR WINDOW REPLACEMENT. UM, DURING THAT TIME IN THAT PROCESS, UM, WHEN WE APPLIED FOR THE GENERAL PERMIT, UM, WE HAD ASSUMED THAT THE GENERAL PERMIT, ALONG WITH THE HISTORIC SIDE OF IT, WAS ALL THAT WE NEEDED. AGAIN, THIS WAS A PROCESS WE UNFAMILIAR WITH AT THE TIME. USUALLY , THE GENERAL PERMIT, YOU CAN MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES, YOU GET YOUR INSPECTIONS AND THINGS ARE INSTALLED. UM, I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS EXPLAINED, UM, SPECIFICALLY TO US. AND THERE, THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION INVOLVED WITH IT ORIGINALLY. WELL, YOU CAN CERTAINLY COME BACK TO US AND ASK FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, BUT, YOU KNOW, WINDOWS AND FENESTRATION OPENINGS ARE SOMETHING THAT ARE KIND OF FIERCELY, FIERCELY PROTECTED BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES, SOME OF THE MOST CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES. UM, I I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT ANY OF THE, THE CHANGES IN SIZES OR RELOCATING OF THE FENESTRATION WOULD'VE BEEN APPROVED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. AND IF YOU WOULD'VE COME BACK FOR, UH, AN AMENDMENT PROPOSING THAT WE WOULD'VE SAID, NO, YOU, YOU PROBABLY CAN'T DO THAT. MAYBE ONE HERE OR ONE THERE WHERE IT'S CLEAR THIS IS NOT AN HISTORIC INTERVENTION. NONE OF THAT'S CLEAR NOW. UM, A A LOT OF WORK THAT WAS DONE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF CHANGES TO THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS WOULD'VE BEEN FILED AS A, AS, UM, UH, AMENDMENTS. UM, IT, THERE'S, THERE'S A, A LOT OF LOSS HERE. AND I DO WANT TO MENTION THE WINDOWS. YOU, I THINK YOU MENTIONED 2 44 GREEN LAWN, UM, IS HAVING THE WINDOW, HAVING MET APPROVAL OF THE WINDOW TYPE THAT, THAT YOU MENTIONED. I I WILL SAY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, FOR NEW ADDITIONS OCCASIONALLY, AND FOR, UH, STRUCTURES THAT NEVER HAD WOOD WINDOWS BECAUSE OF THEIR TIME PERIOD, MAYBE THEY'RE LATER THAN THE, THE THAN THOSE IN THE WOOD WINDOWS, UH, ALUMINUM, ALUMINUM CLAD, UH, WOOD WINDOWS, UH, DO COMPLY WITH OUR SPECIFICATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE WITH WOOD WINDOWS IN IT, UH, THE REPLACEMENT HA HAS TO BE IN KIND. IF IT'S A WOOD WINDOW THAT CANNOT BE REPAIRED, UM, IT, IT SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH A WOOD WINDOW AND A CLAD WOOD WINDOW IS A DIFFERENT MATERIAL ON THE FINISH. SO THE, THE CO THERE ARE APPROVALS BY THIS COMMISSION OF CLAD WINDOWS, BUT, BUT NOT FOR REPLACEMENTS IN HISTORIC BUILDINGS. SO I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT, UM, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT TO DO HERE, BUT I THINK STAFF HAS IT RIGHT. AND, UH, I I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A MOTION AND IF THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE CAN CONTINUE TO DISCUSS IT. UH, I MOVE FOR, UH, DENIAL OF ITEM ONE. COMMISSIONER, FISH. GO AHEAD. BEFORE, UM, IT IS A HARD ONE, I UNDERSTAND, AND I JUST FEEL LIKE MAYBE, UM, DISCUSS [03:25:01] THIS IN A D R C. THERE COULD BE SOME ITEMS COULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT. THERE'S A LOT. AND THEN LIKE ONE THING THAT YOU SAID WAS RIGHT, THE HISTORIC ELEMENTS ARE GONE. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT'S HISTORIC AND NOT HISTORIC. I DON'T KNOW IF A SITE VISIT MAKES IT EASIER BECAUSE OF ALL THE, THE FRAMING IS CHANGED. I JUST FEEL LIKE I, I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING, MAYBE WITH THE EMOTION AND JUST WANTED TO MAYBE SEE THAT'S PROBABLY NOT EVEN GONNA BE A SOLUTION FOR THE APPLICANT. SO MAYBE A D OR C WOULD, THIS CAN BE DISCUSSED MORE IN DETAIL AND COME TO MAYBE SOME KIND OF AN AGREEMENT IF THE APPLICANT, UH, PREFER TO, TO GO THROUGH THIS KIND OF MORE TEDIOUSLY IN FINE DETAIL. UH, WITH THE D R C, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THAT, THAT MOTION. I MEAN, I THINK I'VE BEEN KIND OF CLEAR ON MY POSITION. UH, UH, I'M SORRY, APPLICANT. I CANNOT RECALL YOUR NAME RIGHT NOW. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO GO TO A COMMITTEE MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER? UM, I'LL BE WILLING TO GO TO A COMMITTEE MEETING. UM, I, IF, IF I'D MAKE AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT AS WELL IN RE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE, THE WINDOW REPLACEMENT, UM, THE WINDOWS, MOST OF THE WINDOWS HAVE NOT BEEN MODIFIED OTHER THAN A FEW OPENINGS, WHICH ARE STILL FRAMED FROM THE INSIDE. SO IF, IF WE CAN MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT FURTHER, UM, AND COME TO A COMPROMISE ON IT, YOU KNOW, THOSE CAN BE RESTORED. SO THERE'S, THERE'S NOT AS MANY WINDOWS, UM, THAT WERE CHANGED IN TERMS OF THE WAY THE STRUCTURE ACTUALLY LOOKS FROM A HISTORIC STANDPOINT. YOU CAN'T TELL ANYTHING FROM THE STREET. COMMISSIONER, THIS IS GABRIEL. UH, I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT. IS, IS THIS, UH, YOUR HOUSE OR IS THIS HOUSE A A FLIP OR, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE INVENTORY? UM, SO WE'RE PRIVATE INVESTORS. I OWN A PRIVATE COMPANY, AND SO THIS IS PART OF OUR POOL OF HOMES THAT WE OWN. UM, I'VE DONE OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA. I'VE DONE ONE ACROSS FULTON AVENUE. UM, THAT, THAT WE'VE HAD, THAT WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT TURNED OUT THAT WE HAD TO GO THROUGH COMMISSION ON AND THROUGH THAT, UM, COMMUNITY TO GET APPROVAL ON. SO THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE. THIS IS ONE THAT'S GONNA BE IN OUR INVENTORY THAT WE'RE KEEPING, BUT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE APPROPRIATELY AND THAT IT, IT'S HOMOGENEOUS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WELL, THE, THE, THE REASON I ASK IS WHO, WE GOT A CASE THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THIS NOT THAT LONG AGO, AND THE PREVAILING DECISION AT THAT TIME WAS REALLY TO GO BACK AND REVERSE EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE AND BRING IT BACK TO WHAT, WHAT WAS THERE WITH EQUAL REPLACEMENTS. I THINK THERE WAS ONE COMPROMISE ON A WINDOW, BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS THAT DIDN'T, THAT DIDN'T FLY. UM, SO I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE THAT IT'S JUST ABOUT COMING TO AN AGREEMENT. BUT, UM, BEGINNING WITH WHAT, WHAT WAS THERE? AND, AND YEAH, I WOULD THINK EVEN BEGINNING WITH THE AGREEMENT TO, TO, TO DRAW, UH, A SUBMITTABLE PLAN THAT THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT, THAT THAT'S WHAT THE INTENT WOULD BE. AND I ONLY SAY THAT BECAUSE, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE DRCS, UM, EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO THE RECORD, RIGHT? SO THE DRCS, WE HAVE CONVERSATIONS, WE TALK TO PEOPLE OFF, IT'S, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, IT'S OFF THE RECORD, BUT, BUT WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY COME TO COMMISSION, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC EXPECTS OF US TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE ON THE RECORD. AND WHEN THEY SEE SOMETHING THAT, THAT THEY JUST WENT THROUGH AND THEY DIDN'T GET THE SAME TREATMENT, THAT IT, IT GIVES A SENSE OF UNFAIRNESS. SO JUST, JUST JUST, YOU KNOW, UH, I JUST WANT TO PUT EFFORT TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THE CONVERSATION CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD AND THAT THE D R C GUARANTEE CONVERSATION ON THE RECORD ARE, ARE EQUAL. LET'S JUST DO THIS. THIS IS COMMISSIONER GROUP. I'M GONNA DO A MOTION TO MOVE ITEM ONE AND TWO TO A D R C SITE VISIT, WHERE WE ACTUALLY ALSO MAYBE GET A BIT OF VISUAL OF WHAT HAS BEEN CHANGED AND WHATNOT, AND APPROVE ITEM NUMBER THREE. UM, I DO BELIEVE COMMISSIONER FISH HAD STARTED A MOTION. SO COMMISSIONER FISH, DO YOU WITHDRAW YOURS? YES. I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS SECONDED. SO IT'S WITHDRAWN. AND I'LL SECOND COMMISSIONER GROOVE'S MOTION. GREAT. UH, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, UH, JUST A LITTLE DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER, I, I WOULD, I, I PERSONALLY DON'T, DON'T SEE THE DRAWINGS AS SUFFICIENT TO THE, UM, UM, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE PHOTOGRAPHS. I THINK THE DRAWINGS NEED A LITTLE DETAIL. I, I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT THEY'RE, THAT THE, THAT THE INTENT, LIKE THAT WOULD BE CONCEPTUAL. WE'RE LOOKING AT, IF WE COMPARE IT TO THE OTHER CONCEPTUAL HOUSE THAT THE GUY SHOWED US A WHILE AGO, MUCH MORE DETAILED THAN THIS. THERE ARE LINES THERE, THERE, THERE'S [03:30:01] A, THERE'S THE IMPRESSION OF A LINE OF, OF A, OF A, A FLASHING, OR IS THAT A LINE OF STUCCO? I MEAN, I THINK, I THINK THERE'S, THAT, THERE'S, UH, I WOULD SAY THE D R C, EVERYTHING SHOULD GO TO THE D R C, THE WHOLE THING SO THAT SOMEBODY COMES BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND TELLS US WHAT EXACTLY WE'RE LOOKING AT. UM, SO I, I'LL JUST, THIS IS, THIS IS COMMISSIONER FISH. UH, I MEAN, THERE'S SOME WI THERE'S SOME WISDOM IN WHAT COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ IS SAYING. THE, THE PORT OF CASHIER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED AND SHOULD BE RECONSTRUCTED PRECISELY AS IT WAS BEFORE. UM, I RECOMMEND, I THINK ULTIMATELY THAT WOULD BE APPROVED EXACTLY AS IT'S STATED NOW. BUT I, I, I, I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT AS BEING PART OF THE CONVERSATION IN THE D R C. HOW ABOUT THIS, IT, RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE APPROVING IS RECONSTRUCTION, SO IT HAS TO BE AS IS. I CAN ADD A STIPULATION SAYING THAT DETAILED DRAWINGS TO BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF PRIOR TO START THE WORK COMMISSIONER. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY, ANY A AMENDMENTS NECESSARY. WE CAN DISCUSS FURTHER IN THE D R C. SO THIS IS CHAIRMAN, PROFESSOR, WE HAVE A MOTION. AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. I'LL OPPOSE, UNMUTE. RAISE YOUR HAND AND SAY NAY. MOTION PASSES. [Approval of HDRC Meeting Minutes for September 16, 2020.] THANK YOU. WE JUST HAVE MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 16TH. I MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTE MEETINGS FROM SEPTEMBER 2ND. MEETING MINUTES. YOU HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES. SEPTEMBER 16TH. ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HANDS. SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ABSTAIN. EPSTEIN. I WASN'T HERE. OKAY. ONE ABSTENTION FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER VELASQUEZ. UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE END OF OUR AGENDA. MOTION. MOTION TO, UH, ADJOURN. MOVE TO ADJOURN. SECOND. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. 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.